Sigma 10-20... anybody using one?

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by, Oct 5, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I shot some tests shots with the Sigma 10-20 and also the Canon 10-22 on my
    20D today. I must say that I was quite impressed with the Sigma and thought
    that it was a tad sharper than the Canon and had a bit better contrast.

    I also tried my 17-40 on a 5D for similar FOV and it was poo-yuk horrible.

    My 17-40 mated to my 20D is supurb... but not quite wide enough in the FOV,
    hence the reason for the tests. I am currently leaning towards the Sigma
    lens and would love to know what other users think of it.

    If you are interested here are some of my full size f8 tests shots (please
    keep in mind these are just quickies out the front of the camera shop).....

    Sample 1:

    Canon 10-22 on 20D

    Sigma 10-20 on 20D

    Sample 2:

    Canon 10-22 on 20D

    Sigma 10-20 on 20D

    Sample 3:

    Canon 17-40 on 5D


, Oct 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements


    Douglas... Guest

    If you are to believe the reviewers reviews, it's a dog. If you are to
    believe a certain Russian Photographer who did some extensive tests (in
    the snow at midnight - still well lit) when it was the only thing
    available that wide... It's anything but.

    My opinion is that it is a consumer grade lens which under some
    conditions will yield very nice photos but in the Aussie sun, It is at
    it's worst. Most certainly it is pushing the limit of the lens wider
    than 15 mm FL in anything other than controlled lighting. It might be OK
    for Real Estate work.

    One thing I will say about Sigma lenses is that the manufacturing of the
    EX grade lenses is good to very good but the non EX lenses are in the
    "maybe it'll be a good one, maybe it won't" range.

    CRK are less than inspiring with comments like "2 to 6 weeks to check
    it out but the focus problem is probably in your camera" for a new lens
    that fuzzed out. refund was a faster solution.

    I've owned about 6 Sigma lenses in the past 4 years. I sold all of them
    bar one and replaced them with Canon glass. Only the 120-300 f2.8 EX
    lens was a memorable one. All the others had their own share of unique
    quirks most people could live with but I couldn't.

    Chromatic Aberrations are the partner of (non digital designed) Sigma
    lenses on DSLRs. You probably don't want to hear how bad it gets on the
    10-20 right alongside flair which the lens hood (being designed for film
    FOV) doesn't help with. No idea if the Canon offering is any better.
    Douglas..., Oct 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements


    pc Guest

    I'm going to get one from Hong Kong next holiday.
    Can get one for under A$600 from there.
    pc, Oct 5, 2005
  4. Guest

    Thanks Douglas,

    The 10-20 is in fact an EX lens designed for digital, so I guess I will take
    a chance and give it a go.
, Oct 5, 2005

    Douglas... Guest

    This must be a later model to mine. It was a film lens.
    If you have a film camera and intend to use it on both, you'll get the
    same results as from your 17-40 on one of the cameras.

    The "designed for digital" thing is just directing the light to fall
    onto the sensor at 90 degree angle instead of a variable angle most film
    lenses use. It might be coincidental to your intending purchase but I
    discovered the "digital" glass I bought with a used D70 Nikon was very
    so,so on my F90X but did really nicely on the D2X.

    I also discovered with my original 10D that a 17 - ?? (Forget now)
    Tokina "designed for digital" which was absolute rubbish on an EOS1, did
    an amazing turn around when put on the 10D.

    This site probably has the simplest to understand description of the
    difference in digital and film lenses.

    I think a lot of people haven't yet discovered that the best all round
    results from DSLRs will only be obtained with lenses having specific
    properties suited to digital. The 5D may well exhibit some odd behavior
    with 'designed for film' lenses... Maybe not too. Time will tell but I
    certainly won't be rushing out to buy one after the 20D fiasco.
    Douglas..., Oct 6, 2005

    ww Guest

    read the reviews and discussion you will find CA is in most makes lenses not
    just sigmas
    I must say that the Sigma 12-24mm has less CA than the nikon 12-24mm
    ww, Oct 6, 2005

    ww Guest

    the Sigma 10-20mm was never released before, never came out for film it is a
    digital only lens. You never owned because it never existed before. You are
    probably a little confused with the 17-35mm ex sigma or the 15 -30mm sigma.
    You cant really use it on film because it will vignette so badly.
    ww, Oct 6, 2005
  8. Guest

    I ran a few more test shots today (post purchase) and I have to say that I
    really am rather impressed..

    Here are just a couple of quick snaps down by the broadwater (full size
    Level 10 JPEGS - 2.5mb max)....

    Here is one where I am trying to see how bad it flares.... this is the worst
    that I could make it do!

    Pretty good I reckon!!

    (Camera used: 20D)
, Oct 6, 2005

    Douglas... Guest

    DO yourself a favor Russell and download the DxO RAW converter with a
    module for that lens. It'll fix the distortions and make the 10mm end
    look a hell of a lot less distorted.
    Douglas..., Oct 6, 2005
  10. Guest

    They dont make one yet. :-(
, Oct 7, 2005

    Douglas... Guest

    Talk about dyslexia!
    I've been going on about an entirely different lens all this time.
    Memory must be going too! Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX was my lens. Sorry.
    Douglas..., Oct 8, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.