Sigma 10-20 mm. superwide zoom lens - how good?

[FinelyCruising]

Larry - Thanks for your input. I have been wanting a wide lens like this to supplement the 17-55 Canon I have and enjoy.

[pierces]

This has been a great help....I have really wanted the Canon 10-22, but I think from the test data that I have been reading that the Sigma 10-20 might be a bit better...

 

Dave if you get a moment can you check me on that? I have looked at some test data and test shots and it seems to point to that. (Photozone)

 

I'm hopeful that I might have actually done OK by waiting to find my way to this.:D

 

 

In overall sharpness, the two are nearly identical with a slight edge going to the Sigma (Photozone, SLR Gear, and Pop Photo Labs). The 10-22 has a bit less distortion but honestly, perspective distortion is big enough at this wide of an angle that the small amounts of distortion that bot deliver will be barely noticeable. Sigma has a history of producing an occasional lemon, but their track record is getting better and their customer service is too. I have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG for my Sony, and am very pleased with it's performance. It's not as fast or as sharp as the Sony/Minolta version, but it's very, very close and at half the price!

 

Both are good lenses. The Sigma EX series are well-built and solid performers. So are the Canons. I would call this one a toss-up and compare the price and Sigma's 3-year warranty to Canon's 1-year.

 

Here's a stick in your spokes... Tamron's new 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di-II will be available for Canon soon (Nikon version just started showing up online) and is reported to be the best of this breed (second generation ultra-wide after their excellent 11-18). Might be worth waiting to take a look at test results if you have the time to wait.

 

I'll throw in some ultra-wide composition tips:

 

Landscape - Yes:

 

Close-up portrairs - No:

 

 

:D

 

 

Dave

[FinelyCruising]

Here's a stick in your spokes... Tamron's new 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di-II will be available for Canon soon (Nikon version just started showing up online) and is reported to be the best of this breed (second generation ultra-wide after their excellent 11-18). Might be worth waiting to take a look at test results if you have the time to wait.

 

 

Dave

 

Looks like I'll be waiting.:D Thanks so much!

[Aplmac]

Those who may have been following this thread

may recall my earlier gripes about how the super-wide Sigma 10-20 mm. lens

renders marine horizons in an odd way..

 

I hope this shot below serves to illustrate what I was taking about

 

 

Notice that the central 70% of the horizon is almost dead flat

but those last bits at left and right dip down somewhat

rather than rendering a smooth progressive curve like what a fish-eye lens might deliver.

 

Not so bad,I guess...just not what I was expecting!

 

_________________________________________

A larger image shows it better, so if you'd click on..

http://pictures.cruisecritic.com/showphoto.php?photo=6095&cat=512&limit=recent

and click on the image when you get there

you'll see it better when the big picture comes up.

 

I assume this is the best a lens of this caliber and extreme width can deliver

and I should be happy with what I have. :)

[pierces]

Interesting.

 

My Sony 11-18 (optically the same as the Tamron) has a slight smooth bow when pointed severely upward or downward, but keeps the horizon pretty straight when kept level.

 

Pointed sharply down:

 

Almost level:

 

This seems to follow the reviews pretty well with the Sigma being slightly sharper and the Tamron having a bit less distortion.

 

Dave

Dave

[Aplmac]

That's the sort of sweet gradual curve I expect from any lens under (in 35mm.terms) ..under-20 mm. focal length

-not the weird angular changes I see with my Sigma.

 

Still, it only seems to show on marine horizons, not on man-made straight lines(weird!)

[pierces]

That's the sort of sweet gradual curve I expect from any lens under (in 35mm.terms) ..under-20 mm. focal length

-not the weird angular changes I see with my Sigma.

 

Still, it only seems to show on marine horizons, not on man-made straight lines(weird!)

 

Still, it's pretty good for a 10mm rectilinear zoom. That's some serious light-bending going on!

 

Dave

[FinelyCruising]

The key with these linds of lenses as I understand it is keep the back flat, is that right?

[pierces]

The key with these linds of lenses as I understand it is keep the back flat, is that right?

 

That's it, basically.

 

Even the excellent, low-distortion lenses we're discussing will still exaggerate perspective. Keeping the camera level reduces the effect.

 

Dave

[Aplmac]

The key with these kinds of lenses as I understand it

is keep the back flat, is that right?

Yes, keep the camera back(and thus the 'film plane' -these days the sensor plane)

as close to true vertical as possible.

 

Don't point it up or down too much.

 

You'll soon see the results and figure out for yourself

just how much crazy distortion is acceptable for the purpose you have in mind

but for things you'd want to(normally) reproduce in faithful,understandable detail -like the ship's atrium-

try to keep the camera back "flat" as you put it -vertical.

[TheRoff]

Proves the rule perhaps. Camera straignt, horizon across the middle, boring picture but no perceptable bending. With the Canon 10-22mm.

 

[FinelyCruising]

Looks like I'll be waiting.:D Thanks so much!

 

Dave I am starting to falter....I think the Sigma might be worth pulling the trigger for even with the Tamron sight unseen...how bad could that actually be??? :D

[pierces]

Dave I am starting to falter....I think the Sigma might be worth pulling the trigger for even with the Tamron sight unseen...how bad could that actually be??? :D

 

I see it like choosing a graphics card these days. Do I get the incredibly fast one, the even more incredibly fast one or the unnecessarily fast one? In the end it doesn't matter since all of them are really good and exceed my eyes' ability to tell the difference.

 

You've seen Aplmac's samples and there's nothing in them to indicate that the 10-20 would "limit you as a photographer"! :D

 

If you can't wait...don't! I'm sure you'll be happy with any of them.

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[Aplmac]

Ignore my nitpickings.. buy the darned Sigma and be done with it!

 

You won't be sorry.

[FinelyCruising]

Dave and Aplmac....you made me laugh. :D I think tomorrow I am going to order for B&H as an early holiday gift. Hubby can wrap the empty box and put it under the tree. :D

 

I like the color saturation the Sigma produces. When I looked at comparison photos on photozone of the Canon and the Sigma, I think the shots show the Sigma might do the better job overall. In the test shot, the cobble foreground with the Sigma test was sharp and filled with detail. The Cannon not at all. And I do very much like what I have seen here on this thread with the eye popping colors.

 

I have no idea how I am going to tell what a bad copy is though....:eek:...and what is 'pincushioning'?

[Aplmac]

Dave and Aplmac....you made me laugh. :D

I think tomorrow I am going to order for B&H as an early holiday gift.

Hubby can wrap the empty box and put it under the tree. :D ===> Think?

 

I like the color saturation the Sigma produces

- I do very much like what I have seen here on this thread with the eye popping colors.

Yes, eye-popping colors.....to be honest a bit on the un-natural,overdone side of things,

but that what Saturation Reduction is for, on your favorite image manipulation program :)

 

Although the sky and sea colors here in Barbados can be stunning on days like those above

the Sigma goes a bit 'beyond' -not that I'm complaining!

 

 

_________________________________________

Are we seeing the beginnings of..

The Sigma SuperWide Club, here?

 

How many of us now own this magic lens?

[FinelyCruising]

Well the only thing left to be thinking about is how much I can't wait for it to get here.:D:D:D

[Aplmac]

Well the only thing left to be thinking about is how much I can't wait for it to get here.:D:D:D

Next week sometime, huh?

[pierces]

I have no idea how I am going to tell what a bad copy is though....:eek:...and what is 'pincushioning'?

 

The bad copies I have seen described suffered from inconsistent focus across the image. This was a manufacturing issue where one element or another wasn't quite lined up right. Sigma repaired it for free in all cases I have read about.

 

Pincushioning is the opposite of barrel distortion. This is best seen with a subject like a brick wall that has parallel lines. If a lens suffers from pincushioning, the lines on the sides of the image will bend inward as they approach the center of the image and then back out, sort of like an hourglass but with a smooth curve (I guess some old pincushions were spindle-shaped and narrower in the middle??). Barrel distortion it the opposite where the lines bend outward like the staves of a barrell.

 

The sigma doesn't suffer from much of either.

 

Dave

[FinelyCruising]

Next week sometime, huh?

 

Tuesday. :D

[FinelyCruising]

The bad copies I have seen described suffered from inconsistent focus across the image. This was a manufacturing issue where one element or another wasn't quite lined up right. Sigma repaired it for free in all cases I have read about.

 

Pincushioning is the opposite of barrel distortion. This is best seen with a subject like a brick wall that has parallel lines. If a lens suffers from pincushioning, the lines on the sides of the image will bend inward as they approach the center of the image and then back out, sort of like an hourglass but with a smooth curve (I guess some old pincushions were spindle-shaped and narrower in the middle??). Barrel distortion it the opposite where the lines bend outward like the staves of a barrell.

 

The sigma doesn't suffer from much of either.

 

Dave

 

Thank You Dave. For the first time I really reviewed the return policy for B&H...just in case....now I know what to look for. It did seem to me that there was a frequency in review comments on having a bad copy. Some of them were older postings, but across all the sites, there were plenty of uh-ohs. I hope they fixed the QC by the time mine ships. ;)

 

It took me a little bit of time to find a UV filter to use as a protection glass for this lens. I did find a Hoya that is thinner and is meant to be used for the wider angle lenses to reduce vignetting and to reduce vignetting from the extended screw ring interfering with the lens. At 10mm, it sounds like vignetting is a given on this lens among other issues, but I wondered if any of the various tests used a filter or not, and do these filters that are supposed to aid in the reduction of these anomalies really work. The one I got is from one of the Amazon sellers. Best pricing, no shipping and I suppose a delivery date well beyond Tuesday as a consequence.:o

 

In my travels on the web yesterday I found the great debate on filters/no filters. I do have a UV/Haze on the Canon 17-55 and I decided to take some test shots with and without the filter at 55mm for close up detail, having read some say detail is reduced by using a filter, or is reduced by putting a cheaper filter on a good lens. I would say that my filter on my lens does qualify as a cheaper filter, so I said, let's see what's what before I buy another filter.

 

I was shooting a chandelier here in my kitchen with flash and some daylight in the room and I can say I found no real loss of detail in the way I was focused, but there was some darkening of those shots with the filter although the exposure never changed between any of them. Could see it in the flipping back and forth more than taking a shot and saying ummm....thats darker. Maybe I should be saying those without the filter were brighter. That might be a better description. I'd need to repeat the side by side with and without the filters outside where I think these filters were really meant to be best utilized.

 

So I will do the same thing again with the Hoya when it gets here to see what happens with this lens looking for detail loss and vignetting with or without the new filter and see if it helps or hurts.

[Aplmac]

My 77mm filter is a Jessops UV filter (expensive in the UK!!)

made in Japan(by someone else with a Jessops 'label' on it

and was bought at the store, at the same time I bought the lens.

 

That really is The Best Time to put it on..at point of sale,

before anything affects those delicate outer-element coatings.

 

Anyone know who(in Japan) makes "Jessops" filters for this UK chain of camera stores??

Bet it's someone like Hoya or Olympus or..

[FinelyCruising]

It's here! The lens is here!:D

 

I am told I can test it, put it right back in the box and hand it over until Christmas....:(

[Aplmac]

It's here! The lens is here!:D

 

I am told I can test it, put it right back in the box and hand it over until Christmas....:(

You make that 'test' last at least 3 or 4 days, okay?

 

Tell 'Her' Christmas is anytime in December

[FinelyCruising]

It's a him and I tried. I took about 12 snaps, uploaded them and that was that. The guy was watching me like a hawk. It's back in the box and it has been confiscated.

 

I suppose I could suggest that an indoor test is not really a good enough test, and that I need to make sure the colors outside are 'right' too, but it's slim to none.

 

All I can say is I know I am going to have fun with this lens.... but that Santa guy...even while he is one tough nut, he is a pretty good hubby for getting me this new lens :)