 |
|
|
deanie08
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 2, 2017
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2017
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
I can't tell if its quality is enough but it was not bad though. I think this lens is good for the beginner but not for professional photographers. Pro peeps will have a different choice. Nevertheless, it's not a waste of money still a good investment for your photography career.
http://www.erinmartinphotography.com/newborn
|
|
 Nov 5, 2017
|
|
jonconphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 16, 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Apr 27, 2017
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Really wide lens could make for some interesting shots
|
|
Cons:
|
Aperture starting at f/4 isn't great the lowest I prefer is f/2.8
|
|
I really don't love this lens imo. If you're just getting started maybe its good but I think its not an investment lens for the long term.
Check out this review here on it - https://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_10-20_4-5p6
They do a good job summarizing their opinions on it.
The widest I'd go is with the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 you can take a look at some samples shots here under the wedding section - https://www.jonathanconnolly.com/
Either way by getting it I'm sure you'll learn what it works well with and what it doesn't every lens has its strengths and weaknesses.
Enjoy!
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2017
|
|
simonthgolfer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 13, 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Angle of view, quick AF, build quality, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Maximum aperture.
|
|
|
Excellent value UWA lens. Great for landscapes, architecture, shots of the night sky and getting a distorted perspective to your shots. Not so good in low light without a tripod.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2015
|
|
ScottUmstattd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 16, 2014
Location: Mexico
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 28, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built. Sharp pictures. Love the wide angle.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not a great low light lens, but it's f/4 at the wide aperture and I knew this going in.
|
|
I sold this lens a few years back to get another lens. Of all the lenses I have parted with over the years, this is the one I wish I had back. I shoot on a Canon 60D and the 10mm focal length opened up a whole new world for me. I opted for the Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and am pleased with it. But the extra 5mm on the wide end was noticed.
Fair price. Well built.
Full review on my website http://www.picture-power.com/Sigma-10-20mm-f-4-5-6-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.html
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2014
|
|
oldshutterhand
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2012
Location: Hungary
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 15, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice built quality, small, wide angle, sharp in the center, not bad in the corners
|
|
Cons:
|
flare(common with Uwa lenses)
|
|
This is a quite nice little lens, with nice built quality and huge angle of view. Seems the Tokina 11-16 is better though, but with smaller range, and bigger CA.
See in more detail at:
http://oldshutterhand.com/equipment-reviews/sigma-10-20mm-f4-5-6/
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2013
|
|
mjeffbr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 6, 2011
Location: Brazil
Posts: 56
|
|
Review Date: Jan 18, 2012
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $610.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap option for uwa on crops, free hood and pouch
|
|
Cons:
|
strange distortion pattern, soft corners, non constant aperture, flare
|
|
|
Read many reviews before buying the lens, every one of them said there was not much difference from the canon 10-22, so I must say the latter is not so good
Well, it flares in a weird way, the aperture is not constant and distortion is kinda different, it is not really "barrel" distortion, but these problems did not really bother me so much, I could correct in post and flare only occasionaly was a problem, also the variable aperture is not such an issue for it is better stopped down anyways
The real disappointing aspect of this glass is sharpness (or lack of), especially around the corners
It is inferior in every way to a 18-55 for example, let alone a 24-105
Build quality is very nice, and on a tripod stopped down at night I got some nice shots, still I think it was not worth it
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2012
|
|
faid2black
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
wide angle for crop, my copy is darn sharp, solid build, relatively cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
not constant aperture
|
|
For a while, I had really been wanting to get an UWA for my 40D and decided to try the Sigma out. I have to say my copy has been excellent. Focus is quick, though i've mostly used this lens with landscapes so speed was never an issue. The pictures and views i've been able to take while using this lens are some of my favorites. I've also been impressed with the build as it's very solid. I understand QC could be hit or miss, but i couldn't be happier with this lens.
My favorite shot with this lens on the 40D would have to be this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/5840618218/in/set-72157623916920294
Actually, most photos on that trip to kauai were with that lens, so take a look if you want more examples. Highly recommend the lens!
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2011
|
|
flowatrack2002
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2011
Location: Ireland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 12, 2011
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $270.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
good price, wide
|
|
Cons:
|
soft in corners, decentered - lack of Sigma's Quality Control
|
|
|
Sigma is not really good in QC nowadays. I bought this lens second hand and i noticed that the lens is decentered, the right side is not as sharp as the left. the lens is wide but the corners never will be sharp no matter if i use f9-f11-f13 apertures. well you know it - you get what you paid for...
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2011
|
|
---XR---
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1470
|
|
Review Date: Nov 6, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
WIDE
|
|
Cons:
|
flare, optically unimpressive compared to 12-24 tokina/nikon.
|
|
|
good but not great. not a fan of the sigma build in comparison to the rock solid in every way 12-24 tokina's i've shot in the past, for the price i'd go with those. However i've have had situation in which 12mm on DX isn't wide enough. so the 10-20 does have something they don't. not happy with flare performance. if you need something WIDE on DX though, this is your girl unless you want to spend $900 on the 10-24 nikkor with variable aperture and plastic build (no thanks).
|
|
|
Nov 6, 2010
|
|
LPrimeFreak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 29, 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
10mm (16mm on your cropcam) is very wide, cheap, good price/quality
|
|
Cons:
|
lenshood needed in sunny situations (or flare).
|
|
Had this UWA on my 40D in past, very wide on 10mm (16mm crop), only had some rainbow marks in my pictures (flare) but I forgot to put on my lenshood.
Second hand it's a great budget lens, but I sold it cause I didn't use it often and went to fullframe. I realised there aren't many amazing landscapes in the neighbourhood 
As usual from Sigma good built quality.
Also check Tokina's 12-24 which is a bit more expensive.
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2010
|
|
aVOLanche
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 174
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Bets UWA for the price
VERY wide compared to 12mm on 1.6 crop
Excellent build
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
This is the only non-Canon lens that I currently own.It's fantastic,especially at it's price.
I'd love to have the wider 8-16mm Sigma,but the price prevents that.
This lens is sharp,contrasty,great color,comes with a lens hood at a bargain basement price.
To be fair,I have seen some copies with decenterin issues(have seen 8-16mm Sigmas with the same).My advice is to buy from a dealer with a good return policy.When you get a good copy,you will be amazed!
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2010
|
|
avilar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 28, 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 28, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, angle-of-view, zoom range, build quality, finish, size, fixed stupid lens-cap
|
|
Cons:
|
IQ in corners, focusing
|
|
Have had mine for 4 days and still uncertain whether I have a good/average/bad copy.
Looks OK in centre at any aperture, but corners are disappointing, particularly the left hand side.
AF seems like a hit'n'miss affair, at least with my Nikon D90.
Should I try and exchange for another copy? Sample plus 100% crops from corners here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/avilar/sets/72157624379058390/
1/160 at f8.0, ISO200. EXIF says focus point was 2m which should get me from 0.5m to infinity DOF (according to dofmaster.com)
Good news is Sigma have finally fixed the stupid lens-cap issue: it is now center-pinch.
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2010
|
|
redblank
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $479.99
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
amazing wide angle with limited distortion, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
none so far
|
|
|
After my Sigma 17-70mm bit the dust (I think just finally wore it out -- I used it almost every day for 2.5 years), I decided it was time to replace it with an even wider model. Although the 17mm was great for architecture outside and pretty good for interiors, it was still not wide enough for tight interior spaces.
Needless to say, with this new 10mm lens, tight spaces are no longer a problem! I am amazed at how much more I can capture with the extra field of view.
Highly recommended for interior architectural photography.
|
|
|
May 3, 2010
|
|
mjbrownie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 16, 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
great range on a crop for natural landscapes and candid group shots, color rendition (in good light), nice chunky feel
|
|
Cons:
|
flare, limited to crop sensor
|
|
Any lens that passes the ultimate amateur test of surviving a waist high drop onto a dirt track is worthy of a positive review. Still going strong. So consider this a reliability review.
I've had my copy a while now, initially I found the colors a lot more pleasant than my first lens (a 17-85 which has since been given away) when travelling.
It's also performed well in some extreme hot dusty days that I think were the cause of my other lens probs. I've seen two 17-85 lenses have AF's go on them so I'm interested in long use reviews. My experiences would make me inclined to recommend this lens over the Canon 10-22 counterpart thats still $100 more.
Quick example here (after the drop)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4128054026/
My current expedition combo is a 300mm L + 1.4 tc for birds 10-20mm for (big) rocks.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2009
|
|
Haring
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Sep 11, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
good range if you happen to have a crop body
|
|
Cons:
|
not as good as the Canon L series
|
|
Don't even think about it.
The picture quality is just lifeless....:(:(:( It is better to keep the kit lens! Ok. it is not that bad but you can not compare it to the Canon 17 40 L.
I sold it and bought a Canon 17 40L. What a big difference.
You can see a few pictures in the portfolio for real estate properties:
www.haringphotography.com
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2009
|
|
FatBoyAl
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 689
|
|
Review Date: Aug 24, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $440.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, fast focus, sharp, excellent color
|
|
Cons:
|
Bit o' distortion, variable aperture
|
|
|
I've had the Tokina 12-24/4 for both Canon and Nikon (non-af motor version), the 11-16/2.8 for Canon and the 10-17 fisheye, so I wasn't exactly new to UWA's. I wasn't thrilled with getting this lens, but I wanted a AF motor UWA (and the 12-24/4 mark II wasn't announced yet), which limited which lenses were available to me. I also didn't want to spend the money for the Nikon-branded 12-24. So in all respects this was a compromise lens.
Turns out, however, it wasn't much of a compromise. It's a terrific lens! Sharp, even wide open. Fast AF. Nice build. I'm really enjoying it!
|
|
|
Aug 24, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
170
|
431858
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
