Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 vs F4-5.6

[JJM]

Hi there

I am currently looking to buy a wide angle lens for my 450d, and have pretty much set my sights on the Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6.

However recently the F3.5 has come out and I am interested to see if it will be worth the extra expense.

I would be grateful for any advice?


Thanks,

Jon

[RobDickinson]

Do you need the extra speed? My 10-20 could well be a 10mm f7.1-f8 prime...

I've shot it about 5 times wide open.

[nonuts]

I've got this same question at the moment, for the extra £50 at warehouse express is there any advantage of the F3.5? I'm tempted to get it 'just in case' the F3.5 is ever useful.

[RobDickinson]

From the ISO Crops the f3.5 one looks poorer at f4/10mm than the slower lens , and not quite as good at f8 either.

[...Mole...]

RobDickinson said:

Do you need the extra speed? My 10-20 could well be a 10mm f7.1-f8 prime...

I've shot it about 5 times wide open.

Pretty much how I use my one as well, cant think of any time I have used it wide open.

If you want the extra speed it may be worth considering the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 instead.

[SamHH]

I think the faster lens takes 82mm filters which are slightly more expensive and not made by all manufacturers.

[NewNameNeeded]

I also find the 10-20mm quite soft wide open - so am also in the camp who keep it at f8 or so. As such would not necessarily value the f3.5 option (I'd rather up the iso slightly).

[nonuts]

RobDickinson said:

From the ISO Crops the f3.5 one looks poorer at f4/10mm than the slower lens , and not quite as good at f8 either.

I think that's answered my question thanks - looks like £50 would be better spent elsewhere!

[AndWhyNot]

My old copy (f/4-5.6) was sharp from f/4. I say was - it's had a massive fall and several knocks since; even so it's still acceptably sharp. Doesn't like having a CPL fitted though, that softens it right up.

I'd say the main benefit of the f/3.5 would be at night, away from 10mm. I shoot a lot of star trails and f/4 is really as narrow aperture as you want for that, yet the 10-20 closes its aperture pretty quickly on the zoom from 10mm. If I was buying again I'd take the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 as already mentioned above.

[14-7]

Digital SLR mag has just done a test of four wide angle lenses those being the Tokina ATX 12-24 f/4, Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, Tamron SP AF 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 and a Nikkor AFS DX 10-24mm.

They seemed to rate the Tokina more than the others but at almost £500 think that may be slightly out of your budget.

[JJM]

Thanks for all the feedback. Just ordered the F4-5.6 from Amazon.

[JJM]

So my Sigma 10-20mm lens arrived a week or so ago and I must say after seeing some amazing pics on Flickr and on here I was so disappointed. The quality of the images were dreadful, this was all through the zoom range and at all F Stops. So I have returned it to Amazon and they have given me a full refund.

From a number of searches on Google regarding this lens it seems that a lot of people who buy this model end up exchanging it due to poor quality issues.

If anyone is going to buy the 10-20mm I would suggest buying from the high street and testing it before you buy it, and also to avoid ebay or on-line retailers (now I understand why there are so many "mint" examples for sale on ebay).

Saying that if you get a good one you will be very happy, personally I am going to keep my money and invest it in F4 17-40mm L later in the year as I think I will get a lot more out of this...

Edited by JJM on Tuesday 7th September 10:19

[Simpo Two]

'Quality' in what way exactly?

[JJM]

Primarily the pictures were not that sharp (both on manual focus and auto focus). Some were ok at the centre, but then were slightly out of focus at the edges.

Also at both ends of the zoom 10mm and 20mm there was quite a bit of distortion. I will post a few example tonight so you can see what I mean.

[...Mole...]

JJM said:

Primarily the pictures were not that sharp (both on manual focus and auto focus). Some were ok at the centre, but then were slightly out of focus at the edges.

Also at both ends of the zoom 10mm and 20mm there was quite a bit of distortion. I will post a few example tonight so you can see what I mean.

Thats generally what the 10-20mm can be like like, you get what you pay for at the end of the day and it is pretty cheap compared to the competition. Distortion can be corrected with plug-ins, and I use Unsharp mask in photoshop to sharpen the images up a bit.

[Hairy Cornflake]

I am quite happy with mine. I bought the f3.5 just in case. I have never used it wide open, not used it that much at all really. Image quality for me is good, just one example at f22.



As for the distortion, framing the shot correctly and you can get the distortion working for you. This one @ f8



It does take a bit of time to get used to though!

[nonuts]

After much umming and arrring I bought the F4-5.6 jobbie today, am heading down to Cornwall on Saturday so hope to have some pics and comments to add to this thread.

PS. bugger, circular polarising filters cost a lot when they're bigger.

[NWVT]

yeah tell me about it how much you pay for your polariser ben.

[nonuts]

Not sure to be honest Nick, will have a look at the bill when I get home!

[gary71]

Only problem with polarisers (other than the cost!) on super wide lenses is you can end up with banding across the sky because it covers such a wide viewing angle. Can't find an example on my computer right now, but there is one somewhere!