Wide it up

[MattUK]

Hey there, thanks again for everyone's help choosing a good zoom lens.

I'm in a similar situation now with my wide angle lens - i'm really starting to notice the quality issues with my current Tamron 10-24mm.

I've done a fair bit of research on the:

Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DG HSM
Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 EX DC
Tokina AT-X DX 11-16mm Pro f2.8

It appears that the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DG HSM is the best quality for the price, but i'm wondering what you guys think?

Do you think i'd see noticeably better results than my Tamron?

Thanks for any help

[silversnapper1]

I saw some tests by another magazine last year before I bought my Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. This lens was compared against the Tamron, Nikon, Canon and the Sigma f3.5 and came out top. I seem to recall that they did not consider the difference in aperture values of any significance as most landscape togs will use a tripod so the need for a faster lens if negated.

I absolutely love mine.

[Markulous]

+1 for the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6

[OldBoy]

Heard lots of reports about the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6mm and all of them good. Most swear by it whereas, the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 is regarded as expensive and not as good.

Don't have one myself, as I've got the Nikon 12-24mm F4 and the Nikon 14-24mm F2.8.

[MattUK]

Thanks for the comments guys. I looked at the lens tip resolutions charts for the 2 sigmas, and the 3.5 came out better than the 4-5.6 at f8 and f11 (which I assumed were the best apps to use for a landscape?)

[stevef]

Originally Posted by MattUK

Thanks for the comments guys. I looked at the lens tip resolutions charts for the 2 sigmas, and the 3.5 came out better than the 4-5.6 at f8 and f11 (which I assumed were the best apps to use for a landscape?)

Matt
I have the 10-20 F4-5.6 version and am over the moon with it. I do a lot of walking in the country side and its with me all the time. Knocks spots off my Nikon kit lens

[ianpinion]

Matt I think the general consensus over the two versions of the Sigma 10-20mm is that the f/3.5 isn't worth the extra money as the gain in quality is next to none and for landscapes the extra third of a stop isn't enough of a gain.

There have been a number of previous threads comparing these two lenses if you want to have a read for yourself.

[wavemachine]

+1 for the sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 I have had this lens for about 4 years now, I don't use it that often however when I do I am more than happy with the results.

[MattUK]

Thanks for all the help guys.

I wonder if I'm missing something then? The lenstip reviews for the two sigmas show much better results for the 3.5 in both centre and outer edge graphs:

4-5.6 Centre



3.5 Centre



4-5.6 Edges



3.5 Edges



It looks as though the 3.5 is quite an improvement unless I'm missing something?

Thanks, and sorry if I'm being thick!

[chris-p]

Matt, you're not missing something on the graphs - you're paying too much attention to them, thats all. The f/3.5 is perhaps 6lpmm sharper - hardly worth writing home about.

The 4-5.6 is cheaper, lighter and not significantly softer. Easy choice really.

I've lost count of the number of times this has come up on the forums and what I usually say is that the extra stop (or so) isn't really significant. Depth of field is HUGE at these focal lengths, you'd need a lens sub f/0.5 to get anything like shallow DoF once you focus more than a couple of metres away.
And it's not that much faster and, if it's for landscapes (which it usually is), you'd normally be on a tripod anyway.