 |
|
|
hankd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Mar 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $475.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent ultra-wide zoom, cheap for the optical & physical quality
|
|
Cons:
|
F4 gives soft images at 10mm
|
|
|
I have the Minolta/Sony (Alpha) mount version of this lens.
Overall performance is excellent, but it is uniformly soft at 10mm F4.
By F5.6 it's very good; another stop down and it is awesomely sharp.
Lens flare is well controlled throughout, especially for an ultrawide zoom.
Ultra-wide lenses often capture scenes with wider dynamic ranges
because light sources and dark shadows are both in the frame,
and a lot of lenses have minor flare issues that give the dark areas mild
color casts in such a case -- this lens seems to keep the full dynamic
range crisp and uncontaminated.
|
|
 Mar 4, 2008
|
|
sendjo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2008
Location: Croatia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
price, build quality, addictive focal lenght, center sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
corner sharpness is very bad, CA
|
|
|
very good lens for money it cost, very well built.. but optically I`m very very disappointed!
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008
|
|
Dirkjan06
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 21, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing range
|
|
Cons:
|
Not thát sharp
|
|
|
First of all, I really like this lens. It is build like the proverbial tank and the 10mm range is out of this world, it's as wide as you can get at the moment.
Colour rendering is fine, but when the sun is in range you get some nasty flares.
Putting the lenscap on or off with or even without the hood on is a real pain. After almost losing this lenscap at a congress (it's a miracle I even found it back) I bought a genuine Nikon pinch-type cap which is simply wonderfull.
Don't even try to flash with your camera's internal flash unit, because the large diameter (77mm) will for sure cast a shadow.
I believe I got a reasonably good copy, because there are no soft spots, the image is consistent and color rendering is good.
But I cannot help to wonder why so many people rate this lens as "sharp". Because, actually it is not that sharp. Not even at F8. Don't get me wrong, it is acceptable enough and you won't see it on a 10x15cm print. But it's simply not sharp to the pixel (and I only got 6 millions of them). It cannot match e.g. my Nikkor 18-135mm/3.5-5.6 or my very old Nikkor 28-70/3.5-4.5.
Sure, I do enjoy it but I wished it was just a bit sharper. Other than that, it stays on my D100 for about 70% of the time. And if it's not on mine, it certainly is on my girlfriends D40!
Ultra wide angle is addictive... consider yourself warned!
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2008
|
|
Giorgos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
SHARP, price, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
A little flare prone, you should always the lens hood.
|
|
|
This is an amazing lens. About 80% of the photos I have in my "keepers" folder came from this lens. It actually boosted my photography to a new level. It brings out your creativity, with beautiful distortions, even though distortion is not the correct word, the lens is actually distortion free, but the extreme wide angle effect is something that the human eye is not used to, which brings this wow-effect to your photos (by wow I don't mean world of warcraft).
This lens is as solid as lenses get. By the first time you hold it you think, this is a quality lens. I've owned it for almost a year now and it has produced great results. I have actually produced A0 prints with this lens, and the results where amazing!
I might have got a good sample of this lens but I can hardly find any cons for this lens, besides the obvious difficulties with extreme wide angles, like vignetting when using thick filters, difficulty when using Cokin or Lee adaptors, and the occasional photo when you have accidentally put your feet in the frame.
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2008
|
|
gberger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 230
|
|
Review Date: Jan 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, great focal range, price
|
|
Cons:
|
None, but obvioulsy others have experienced QC issues.
|
|
I've had this lens for about a year now. My first test shots were inconclusive, but once I started using it regularly and became accustomed to it I was very impressed. Stopped down and on a tripod, this lens is extremely sharp. It produces some really stunning auto interiors. I'[ve never used the Canon so I can't compare the two, but I see no reason to go shopping for something else. Here's a link to a coupl of interior shots taken recently (exterior was taken with a Canon 85mm F/1.8 - a GREAT lens). The car was not really prepped properly, so I just grabbed a couple of quick shots:
http://gberger.smugmug.com/gallery/4115038#240012138
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2008
|
|
Dave Indech
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Dec 27, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $455.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Smooth zoom and focus, excellent build, small and light, included lens hood, potentially(!) superior optics
|
|
Cons:
|
4 of 4 samples were decentered; horrible QC
|
|
|
I want so much to like this lens. I tried four copies in a series, all from Amazon, which has an excellent RMA policy. All of them were decentered.
Decentering on a lens like this means that the center is sharp, the right side (always the right side) is sharp, and the left 1/3 of the frame is soft. The left 1/5 of the frame would be extremely soft. The lens would be weakest at open apertures and 10mm, and acceptable stopped down on the long end. The 18-55 kit lens (not a spectacular optic) had far better edge performance at the same apertures and focal lengths. Center performance on all copies was universally excellent at all apertures, however.
I sent the best copy (mild decentering) back to Sigma to have it serviced. It came back the worst of the lot.
If not for the QC, this lens would be every bit the equal (or superior) of the Canon 10-22 at $180 less. I've seen good copies, I know what it's capable of, I just wasn't able to get one. The HSM focus is almost the equal of the USM on my 100/2. Same soft rolling sound, same speed, and it was exactly accurate at all distances.
The build quality is excellent. I didn't have the 10-20 long enough to comment on the longetivity of the finish, but the focus and zoom rings were very smooth. The general feel is significantly better (and tighter) than my 28-135, but a step down (because it's largely plastic) from my 200/2.8L.
The upshot is this: If you're willing to jump through these hoops to find yourself a copy with all the elements in proper alignment, it's a stellar optic, and even better than the Canon. But if you value your time at all, just buy the 10-22.
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2007
|
|
Mark Chapman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
After reading many excellent reviews of this lens, I decided to get it as my main ultra-wide landscape lens. I'm so disappointed with this lens. On the positive side, its well made, feels high quality. Apart from that, not much positive I can say about the one I've got.
|
|
Cons:
|
The results I've got so far with this lens have been terrible. The colour is awful - this lens gives a very noticeable yellowish cast to the colour, which I have heard others complain about Sigma lenses having this characteristic. Of course there is distortion with this lens, thats inevitable really. But what really bothers me is how soft the results are with this lens, especially (but not only) on the right hand side. Perhaps I just got a poor copy, because many people say this lens is sharp. I am not happy and will be returning it to Sigma for testing and possible adjustment/ replacement.
|
|
|
I was really looking forward to getting this lens, but now I wish I had spent more and got the Canon instead. This lens has fallen far far short of my expectations, especially after reading so many good reviews of it. The lens feels and looks quality. It's solid, very well made, and surprisingly heavy.
BUT, and its a huge but,...the results I've got with it are WAY short of what I expected. To be fair its quite good at some settings, and the sharpness at the centre is good. The edges are really, really soft. The yellowish colour this lens gives really annoys me. It doesn't accurately reproduce colours. I prefer a more neutral lens. I'm beginning to think I was just unlucky and got a rubbish copy, but if thats the case, then Sigmas QC department must be incredibly slack. I'll try another copy and hopefully get a better one, but it will have to be something special to persuade me to buy a Sigma lens again.
It has it's good points, but at the end of the day it comes down to image quality for me, which is why I give it a poor overall rating.
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2007
|
|
Hitendra
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2007
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 26, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $539.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb image quality at bargain price.
|
|
Cons:
|
77 filter size. Lens cap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2007
|
|
Rotheus Latham
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 49
|
|
Review Date: Nov 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $445.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very wide, good sharpness, quiet, very well built. The first one i had was very soft all over. Sent it back and the second one is much better.
|
|
Cons:
|
some distortion wide open, but what do I expect?
|
|
|
This is a fun lens to play with. Has a very wide angle of view wide open. I wish the first one had been good out of the box, but the second one was.
|
|
|
Nov 7, 2007
|
|
Teru Kage
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2007
Location: China
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good overall sharpness for an ultra wide angle
Fast focus
Great value for money
|
|
Cons:
|
Non-uniform distortion at max wide; hard to correct in PS
|
|
I've had this lens for over a year now and it's an absolute joy to use. I love to go wide and so far this lens hasn't let me down. I was seriously considering the 12-24mm Nikon, but at nearly twice the cost and offering 2mm less on the wide end (which makes a significant difference at this focal length), I decided to go Sigma.
The focus is fast and the corner to corner sharpness is pretty good for an ultra-wide angle lens. If I had to find a fault, it would be the non-uniform distortion at 10mm. Instead of the usual barrel shape, the distortion forms a slight "m" shape, which proves difficult to correct in PhotoShop. However, unless I'm shooting flat horizons or other straight lines, this distortion rarely shows.
Being an EX lens, it has the usual sparkly matte finish (which you either hate or don't). So far, no problems with the finish flaking off.
I would definitely recommend this lens.
Some samples:
At 10mm
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto/Street/Overpass_0358_bw
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto/Architecture/HKCEC_3358
At 20mm
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto/Shing_Mun_Reservoir/Shing_Mun_2801_c
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2007
|
|
Hitendra
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2007
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 18, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $539.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb image quality at bargain price.
|
|
Cons:
|
77 filter size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2007
|
|
Peter twohey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 118
|
|
Review Date: Oct 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $480.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality-Sharp-Sharp-Sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
F2.8 would have been really nice.
|
|
|
I have been looking for a wide angle for some time.I purchased this from ebay UK from a photographer who was forced to sell his kit and ascertained before bidding that it was a good example.Quite simply-I love it.It is brilliant in town at night.It is brilliant with architecture.It is brilliant with landscape and it is brilliant indoors.By the way-did I mention that it is brilliant!
Having read the reviews on FM I was clear in my mind that this was the lens for me.It sems that all the negatives surround QC issues and that if you can get a good one then it is almost perfect. It is very sharp throughout the range with a little softness creeping in at 20mm which is hardly a problem.For sure adjusting a polariser is fiddly with the lens hood on but that is true with most lens hoods.Build quality feels really solid and the lens has a quality look to it.Image quality is right up there with L glass.
If you can get a good copy then buying this lens becomes a no brainer.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2007
|
|
S Mandgaryan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality, AF, Quiet, Super Wide, SHARP!
|
|
Cons:
|
Taking off the lens cap with the lens hood attatched (Fixed by buying a pinch lens cap), Soft at 20mm.
|
|
|
I was deciding between this lens, and the Sigma 18-200 OS lens, but I am glad that I got the 10-20, and this is why.
If you want to shoot wide, have a crop body, have $500 or so laying around, and are in need of a high quality, super sharp lens, and don't want to pay for the Canon EF-S 10-22, this lens is your perfect match.
I tested the sharpness of the lens at 10mm at 100% crop, this thing is sharper than the 50mm 1.8 prime, however it isn't that sharp at 20mm.
As for CA, I didnt see any, but the IQ of the lens makes it truly worthy of spending $500 on.
Get this lens, you wont regret it!
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007
|
|
THarley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 3, 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Reasonably sharp, well built, nice finish, WIDE. CA well controlled.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF needs calibration on my copy, lens cover not easy to remove with lens hood attached.
|
|
|
Had a lot of difficulties deciding which wide zoom to buy - and ended up with this one bought out of Hong Kong on Ebay. Had to pay taxes and customs so I didn't save anything.
I knew that QC is substandard on this lens so I was not surprised that it didn't focus corrctly at long distances. This is not a huge problem as I can focus manually. I think I will get it calibrated though.
Colors are OK and the distortions is easily corrected in PTLens. It's a whole lot of fun to play with and I am sure that I will be using it a great deal in the future
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2007
|
|
E. Amador
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 6, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Build Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
The first copy was bad, WB changes in the same condition (tripod) indoor
|
|
|
The first copy I tried was bad. The upper right corner was out of focus (Thanks to this forum, I was warned).
The second one was sharp.
One question. Do you experience WB changes in Auto WB when you shoot in the same conditions ?
|
|
|
Sep 6, 2007
|
|
grendel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 76
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide, sharp, good color, IQ as good as the canon 10-22, build
|
|
Cons:
|
lens had to go back to sigma for calibration due to soft left hand side, slow at f/4
|
|
I've had this lens for a year and a half and shot probably thousands of pictures with it. For a 1.6x crop sensor, you don't have a lot of choice...it's this or the canon. IQ is as good as the Canon, though obviously limited by the distortion you get on a 10mm lens.
The canon has moderately better autofocus and probably build, BUT autofocus is almost pointless on this lens. At 10mm and f/8, your hyperfocal distance is just over 2 feet so the A/F becomes kind of redundant. You're never waiting for it to focus, trust me. 
The only reason to avoid this one is if you plan to switch to a full frame camera in the near future...
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
170
|
432093
|
Nov 5, 2017
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
84% of reviewers
|
$468.72
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.89
|
8.90
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
