[Jewelltrail]

Some shots with my Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6:

[karma mechanic]

I've got the 10-20 in the f4-5.6 version. and it is fun distilled into a lens. Even in the inclement weather of the Britsh Isles it gives impact on a rainy day:


The Sigma for me all the way.

[Dma110]

Jewelltrail. Missed some of that info 1st time. Thanks for the
Links

Qtopplings. I read your comparisons a few days ago and was
hoping you just had rotten luck with the tammy.

The brain says go with the sigma. I think it's going to win.
Might just order it tomorrow. Let you all know.
Many thanks everyone

[tojason]

Hi there. Anyone has luck with the Tamron. I try to make a decision whether the Tamron or Sigma and still can"t make my choice. I would appreciated if someone has both lens and show us some pictures. Sigma is $200.00 more than the Tamron and I really want to save money to buy another macro lens, Tamron 90mm.

[Vylen]

Prices in Australia are unsurprisingly terrible... From one store:

Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 $705.00
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 $655.00
Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 HSM $845.00

If I was lacking some money, I'd go for the Sigma f4-5.6...
If I had the money to spend, I'd go for the Sigma f/3.5...

Hopefully I'll soon have the money to spend... heheh.. save up, save up!

[Jewelltrail]

Prices in Australia are unsurprisingly terrible... From one store:

Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 $705.00
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 $655.00
Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 HSM $845.00

If I was lacking some money, I'd go for the Sigma f4-5.6...
If I had the money to spend, I'd go for the Sigma f/3.5...

Hopefully I'll soon have the money to spend... heheh.. save up, save up!

It would be silly to pay extra for the 3.5 10-20 IMO. The f4-5,6 is better @ 10mm, the reason you buy UWA in the first place. The little extra speed is too little consolation for a lens which is not really an upgrade to its older brother--read the conclusion, within Nikon mounts, for the 3.5 vs. the 4-5.6--especially see MTF @ 10mm in the exteme borders. f4-5.6 version gets 5 stars---the 3.5 verion gets 3 & 1/2 Stars. Even CA control is better in the f4-5.6 version. This is a no brainer.

Buy the 10-20 f4-5.6: great lens--great price.

Edit: The 3.5 version does have HSM for Pentax, which is something to consider, though for this focal range, I really see no need for HSM.

[qtopplings]

Hi there. Anyone has luck with the Tamron. I try to make a decision whether the Tamron or Sigma and still can"t make my choice. I would appreciated if someone has both lens and show us some pictures. Sigma is $200.00 more than the Tamron and I really want to save money to buy another macro lens, Tamron 90mm.

Read my post from earlier in this thread. There is a link to a comparison of the two lenses, as well as links to both lens clubs.

[tojason]

Thanks for all your help. I am going to order the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6. I think it costs $479.00. Have a great day.

[Dma110]

OK Just ordered the Sigma. Will be here on wed. Need to hide it from the wife. She knows about the K-5 body ut not the 18-135 or this. Spent enough $. Time to quench my LBA
My thanks to everyonr who offered help and advice

[Dma110]

P.S. I can only hope I can improve enough to come close to what you guys can do.
I am ok at wildlife if I bullseye the animal, but REALLY suck at composition. Am hoping the
uwa lens will force me to practice. Know all the rules, but forget to put them in practice
out in the field. need to shoot, shoot, shoot and shoot some more.

[qtopplings]

The nice thing about UWA lenses, is sometimes they allow you to break the rules of typical composition. Try to get up close just as much as you get the distant views. And have fun!

Post your shots in the Sigma lens club. Post shots in the critique section, you'll get a lot of good feedback.

I think you made the wise choice. Good luck keeping it from your wife though

[kenyee]

I thought about the DA15 as well, but at f/8, the Sigma 10-20 (not the HSM one) does just about as well in resolution. Thought about upgrading to the 10-20 HSM and the Tamron 10-24 and the new Sigma 8-16 and none seemed worth it in terms of resolution...the 8-16 maybe for the better resolution but not for the price difference, so that might have been another one to consider...

[EsBee]

OK Just ordered the Sigma. Will be here on wed.

So, how is it? Have you posted any photos taken with it anywhere yet?

I've been thinking about getting a UWA for a little while also. My 16-45/50 zooms just don't quite meet my needs for indoor photography. I have been going back and forth between Sigma and Pentax. I have ruled out primes and Tamron 10-24 based on what I've read, heard and seen photos taken with.

[RioRico]

As I mentioned on a similar thread, I've finally decided that my Tamron 10-24 (bought with a US$100 discount around Xmas) is VERY GOOD. I don't expect super-duper corner sharpness at 10/3.5; anywhere else, it's pretty damn sharp. I'm using it and the DA10-17 at 10mm about equally; at the other end, I use the Tammy more than the DA10-17 at their longest focal lengths. (The 10-17 is only f/4.5 at 17mm; I'm more likely to use the rather faster Zenitar 16/2.8 there.)

As others have experienced and expressed: Your Mileage May Vary. We hear of buyers needing several replacement so both the Tammy and Sigmas, before getting an acceptable copy. We DON'T hear as much from those who are busy shooting with theirs. Except in the clubs, of course.

[jeverettfine]

I own a Tamron 10-24 and find it a quite nice lens. Sure, it may not be the sharpest too in the bag, but in my opinion corner sharpness is an over rated characteristic in super-wide lenses. That is primarily due to the inherent perspective distortion you get with such lenses. Center sharpness is much more important as these lenses are for getting really close to your subject in order to exaggerate perspective, not for simply "getting the whole subject in the frame". Take a look at this article about how to use ultra-wide lenses: How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses
I agree with Ken's take on all of this. He is a Leica guy (as am I), so perhaps we come at this from a somewhat different "perspective".