Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 HSM EX DC vs Sigma 8-16

Heie · 01-19-2012, 04:48 AM

I am currently in the works of trying to sell/trade my DA 12-24 in search of something wider. My dream is to get a 10 or less from Pentax that is WR, but I won't get it in time for my deployment to Afghanistan (just under 30 days out).
So my plan was to get the 8-16, but someone offered a trade with the 10-20 f/3.5 EX DC HSM (plus some filters), and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts for the differences between that and the 8-16.

1) Note also that I plan to acquire the DA* 16-50 as well (I have the 50-135, but the wider side + the weather sealing is needed), so is the 10-15 + 16-20 overlap going to be a benefit, or will it be mostly be unnecessary and thus the 8-16 is the much more sound choice?
Can anyone post 2 sets of pictures from an 8mm and 10mm perspective? 1 being indoors (i.e. cathedral) and outdoors (i.e. wide open vista). I'd like to compare how much of a difference the 2mm is and if I am fretting over a negligible amount. Please note I am referring to rectilinear only, not fish eye. I would very much appreciate these examples.

2) I do like that it is a constant 3.5, as opposed to the 8-16's 4.5-5.6, but is it really that much of a benefit since I have the K5?

3) Lastly, build quality - can anyone comment on either's build quality? I know they aren't sealed, but I have heard the Sigma EX is top of the line and very well built. The 8-16 is not EX, so I was wondering how much of a difference they exhibit and how much the EX makes a difference?

Thank you very much,
Heie

JinDesu · 01-19-2012, 05:41 AM

My understanding is that the 8-16 is sharper than the 10-20. As for speed, you aren't going to notice much benefit in the slightly faster speed of the 10-20 as it is such a wide angle lens

northcoastgreg · 01-19-2012, 09:00 AM

If you're going to sell the DA 12-24 because you need something even wider, why settle for 10mm when you can get 8? 8mm may not be much wider than 10, but then again, 10mm is not much wider than 12. At least with the 8-16, you know got as wide a rectilinear as will likely ever be made.

nj1975 · 06-03-2015, 12:44 AM

Hi

I am looking for a wide-angle lens for my K5II for a forthcoming trip to Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China and Kyrgyzstan) - I came across your post from 2012 and wondered whether you had found a wide angled lens and how you have found it?

Many thanks

vonBaloney · 06-03-2015, 01:22 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by northcoastgreg

If you're going to sell the DA 12-24 because you need something even wider, why settle for 10mm when you can get 8? 8mm may not be much wider than 10, but then again, 10mm is not much wider than 12. At least with the 8-16, you know got as wide a rectilinear as will likely ever be made.

With ultra wide-angles, 2mm is a big difference (8 is 20% wider than 10 and 33% wider than 12).

The 8-16 is a very solid lens, but weather-sealed it is not and the front glass might be a vulnerable in a dusty environment (and it has that weird cap). But if you want the widest of the wide, that's the one. The 10-20 is probably easier to use (and keep protected) -- haven't used it, but is a more normal shape and size -- and if you are using it mainly outdoors 10mm is still pretty wide and the less extreme 17-20 range is available. Can't go wrong with either one of them, just depends how extreme you want to go. (I think I use my 8-16 mainly in the 10-12 range.) The aperture difference is pretty much a non-issue for a lens like this -- stop it down, you can afford a slower shutter at these focal lengths...

ChiswickNick · 05-19-2019, 03:20 AM

Just wondering if there are any updated or latest views on the 8-16 vs 10-20 from Sigma?
I see lots of opinions in both directions.
Have just been looking at MTF charts for both which shows 8-16 to have less tail off, but this is my first time interpreting MTF charts so not sure!

**RICHARD L.** · 05-20-2019, 09:56 AM

I own a DA 12-24 mm f/4 lens and I would never part from it. You don't see lenses of this quality very often, notably from jobber makes.

TerryL · 05-20-2019, 10:17 AM

I'm going from the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 to the Pentax 12-24. I find that there's way too much distortion at 10mm, so I don't need 10 anymore. The 12-24 is a nice lens.

**RGlasel** · 05-20-2019, 12:17 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ChiswickNick

Just wondering if there are any updated or latest views on the 8-16 vs 10-20 from Sigma?

It's not a direct answer to your question (or the OP's question, ironically), but the OP (@Heie) included the 8-16 in his review of four ultrawide lenses. Based on pictures posted and various reviews, it seems that the 8-16 deals with flare much better than either of the 10-20 zooms (the earlier, variable aperture version of Sigma's 10-20 seems to be the worst). Used 10-20's are significantly less expensive than the 8-16, which might be another indication of relative performance.

01-19-2012, 04:48 AM	#1
Heie Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 968	Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 HSM EX DC vs Sigma 8-16 I am currently in the works of trying to sell/trade my DA 12-24 in search of something wider. My dream is to get a 10 or less from Pentax that is WR, but I won't get it in time for my deployment to Afghanistan (just under 30 days out). So my plan was to get the 8-16, but someone offered a trade with the 10-20 f/3.5 EX DC HSM (plus some filters), and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts for the differences between that and the 8-16. 1) Note also that I plan to acquire the DA* 16-50 as well (I have the 50-135, but the wider side + the weather sealing is needed), so is the 10-15 + 16-20 overlap going to be a benefit, or will it be mostly be unnecessary and thus the 8-16 is the much more sound choice? Can anyone post 2 sets of pictures from an 8mm and 10mm perspective? 1 being indoors (i.e. cathedral) and outdoors (i.e. wide open vista). I'd like to compare how much of a difference the 2mm is and if I am fretting over a negligible amount. Please note I am referring to rectilinear only, not fish eye. I would very much appreciate these examples. 2) I do like that it is a constant 3.5, as opposed to the 8-16's 4.5-5.6, but is it really that much of a benefit since I have the K5? 3) Lastly, build quality - can anyone comment on either's build quality? I know they aren't sealed, but I have heard the Sigma EX is top of the line and very well built. The 8-16 is not EX, so I was wondering how much of a difference they exhibit and how much the EX makes a difference? Thank you very much, Heie

06-03-2015, 12:44 AM	#4
nj1975 Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 57	Sigma 10-20mm Hi I am looking for a wide-angle lens for my K5II for a forthcoming trip to Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China and Kyrgyzstan) - I came across your post from 2012 and wondered whether you had found a wide angled lens and how you have found it? Many thanks

05-19-2019, 03:20 AM	#6
ChiswickNick New Member Join Date: May 2019 Posts: 1	Latest views? Just wondering if there are any updated or latest views on the 8-16 vs 10-20 from Sigma? I see lots of opinions in both directions. Have just been looking at MTF charts for both which shows 8-16 to have less tail off, but this is my first time interpreting MTF charts so not sure!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 150-500 HSM and Sigma 2X TC	mattv	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	01-13-2012 01:34 PM
Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM or Sigma 20mm F1.8 EX DG ASP RF?	VoiceOfReason	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	12-26-2011 05:34 AM
Want to buy: sigma 17-70 DC or Sigma 17-70 HSM	raider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	09-17-2011 03:24 PM
Sigma 70-200 2.8 (NON-HSM) + Sigma/Kenko/Pentax TC?	sergysergy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	08-08-2011 03:31 PM
Wanted - Acquired: Sigma 150-500mm HSM, 150mm MACRO HSM, Sigma 18-250 HSM, Sigma 10-20mm HSM	mackloon	Sold Items	7	05-01-2011 02:25 AM

01-19-2012, 05:41 AM	#2
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	My understanding is that the 8-16 is sharper than the 10-20. As for speed, you aren't going to notice much benefit in the slightly faster speed of the 10-20 as it is such a wide angle lens

01-19-2012, 09:00 AM	#3
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	If you're going to sell the DA 12-24 because you need something even wider, why settle for 10mm when you can get 8? 8mm may not be much wider than 10, but then again, 10mm is not much wider than 12. At least with the 8-16, you know got as wide a rectilinear as will likely ever be made.

06-03-2015, 01:22 AM - 1 Like	#5
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by northcoastgreg If you're going to sell the DA 12-24 because you need something even wider, why settle for 10mm when you can get 8? 8mm may not be much wider than 10, but then again, 10mm is not much wider than 12. At least with the 8-16, you know got as wide a rectilinear as will likely ever be made. With ultra wide-angles, 2mm is a big difference (8 is 20% wider than 10 and 33% wider than 12). The 8-16 is a very solid lens, but weather-sealed it is not and the front glass might be a vulnerable in a dusty environment (and it has that weird cap). But if you want the widest of the wide, that's the one. The 10-20 is probably easier to use (and keep protected) -- haven't used it, but is a more normal shape and size -- and if you are using it mainly outdoors 10mm is still pretty wide and the less extreme 17-20 range is available. Can't go wrong with either one of them, just depends how extreme you want to go. (I think I use my 8-16 mainly in the 10-12 range.) The aperture difference is pretty much a non-issue for a lens like this -- stop it down, you can afford a slower shutter at these focal lengths...

05-20-2019, 09:56 AM	#7
RICHARD L. Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Quebec City, Quebec Posts: 6,575	I own a DA 12-24 mm f/4 lens and I would never part from it. You don't see lenses of this quality very often, notably from jobber makes.

05-20-2019, 10:17 AM	#8
TerryL Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 850	I'm going from the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 to the Pentax 12-24. I find that there's way too much distortion at 10mm, so I don't need 10 anymore. The 12-24 is a nice lens.

05-20-2019, 12:17 PM - 1 Like	#9
RGlasel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Saskatoon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,228	Originally posted by ChiswickNick Just wondering if there are any updated or latest views on the 8-16 vs 10-20 from Sigma? It's not a direct answer to your question (or the OP's question, ironically), but the OP (@Heie) included the 8-16 in his review of four ultrawide lenses. Based on pictures posted and various reviews, it seems that the 8-16 deals with flare much better than either of the 10-20 zooms (the earlier, variable aperture version of Sigma's 10-20 seems to be the worst). Used 10-20's are significantly less expensive than the 8-16, which might be another indication of relative performance.