Sigma 10-20mm F 4 ?

lesmore49 · 02-16-2012, 08:08 PM

A friend of mine has a Pentax K200D. He has Pentax lenses...16-45, 50 F 1.4, 55-300. He also has the Pentax kit lenses...18-55 and 50-200 which he doesn't use any more.

He's very happy with his equipment. He has a discerning eye and appreciates a sharp picture.

Lately he has been mulling over whether or not to buy a Sigma 10-20 mm F 4.

But ...if and before he makes the plunge he would like to know if the Sigma matches his Pentax 16-45 in picture quality, reliability and durability.

Having never used a Sigma 10-20 before....I can't comment on the qualities of this lens ?

What can you tell me about this lens...what do you like...what don't you like...what would you consider to be the stand out qualities of this lens ?

Thank you.

Les

Adam · 02-16-2012, 08:13 PM

41 reviews here: Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

We'll also soon be posting a comparison of the Pentax 12-24, Tamron 10-24, and Sigma 12-24, so stay tuned for that!

lesmore49 · 02-16-2012, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Adam

41 reviews here: Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

We'll also soon be posting a comparison of the Pentax 12-24, Tamron 10-24, and Sigma 12-24, so stay tuned for that!

Thanks Adam. I've read the Sigma assessments in the third party databaseand the rating system is very good.

In addition I would appreciate, any other comments from members ...over and above ...the Sigma 10-20 info, contained in the third party lenses assessment..

BTW, Adam I'm looking forward to the comparison of the super wides you mentioned. I have a Pentax 12-24 and am very happy with the quality of this lens.

I made the decision, based on the PentaxForum Lens evaluation...also from questions...like this thread in this forum and the Popular Photography test...which called the Pentax 12-24...the best of the bunch....in the super wide zoom category

tibbitts · 02-16-2012, 08:44 PM

It's not clear which 10-20mm Sigma he's interested in, but I find the older 10-20 (slower aperture) to be good quality by my standards. But I'd also rate my 16-45 very similar to my (old, unimproved) 18-55. They're all pretty good at modest apertures. I try to use f9.5-11 with all these lenses, unless I need even more depth of field. Probably 80% of my use of the Sigma is at 10mm, and I wouldn't have been as happy with a 12mm, particularly since I already had the 16-45mm. When I bought my lens the 8mm Sigma hadn't been released yet, but it's certainly worth a consideration. I do make some use use of filters (split ND particularly), which would probably be less convenient with the 8mm. But camera sensors have moved on since my older models, and the dynamic range today might eliminate some of the need for split ND filters.

With any lens it's important to buy where you can test and return the lens without difficulty, because quality can vary quite a bit from one copy to another.

Incidentally, I don't consider 12mm to be in quite the same category as 10mm, nor 10mm to be in quite the same category as 8mm. 2mm matters at these focal lengths, so these lenses don't really compete directly with each other.

Paul

calsan · 02-16-2012, 09:08 PM

Quick summary.
It's great for documenting or recording everything in a room in as few shots as possible. So it's a good tool for my work.
Very sharp - I would say from f5.6 onwards at 10mm.
Could just have 10mm and wouldn't miss the zoom.
Star bursts have a broad fan shape to them rather than star shape.
Requires an external flash with a diffuser as well due to 110 degree coverage.
I'm not so keen on the weight and bulk so I use it minimally when not for work. I'd really prefer a DA15 for travel, for example.
Possibly too wide... easy to get lazy with compositions when everything is in the photo.

lesmore49 · 02-16-2012, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by tibbitts

It's not clear which 10-20mm Sigma he's interested in, but I find the older 10-20 (slower aperture) to be good quality by my standards. the older 10-20 which I believe is an F 4...the newer is an F 3.5..think that's right ?But I'd also rate my 16-45 very similar to my (old, unimproved) 18-55. They're all pretty good at modest apertures. I try to use f9.5-11 with all these lenses, unless I need even more depth of field. Probably 80% of my use of the Sigma is at 10mm, and I wouldn't have been as happy with a 12mm, particularly since I already had the 16-45mm. When I bought my lens the 8mm Sigma hadn't been released yet, but it's certainly worth a consideration. I do make some use use of filters (split ND particularly), which would probably be less convenient with the 8mm. But camera sensors have moved on since my older models, and the dynamic range today might eliminate some of the need for split ND filters.

With any lens it's important to buy where you can test and return the lens without difficulty, because quality can vary quite a bit from one copy to another.

Incidentally, I don't consider 12mm to be in quite the same category as 10mm, nor 10mm to be in quite the same category as 8mm. 2mm matters at these focal lengths, so these lenses don't really compete directly with each other.

Paul

I know that 2 mm makes a big difference. What I wanted in my case with the 12-24...was not so much sweeping vistas of landscape...I'm more interested in getting good, close up pictures of complete vintage cars....but with little distortion...the 12 -24 gives me this where the 10-20 wouldn't.

But my friend is more interested in sweeping vistas than vintage car pix...so leans towards the 10-20.

**Chuckie** · 02-16-2012, 10:31 PM

I recently purchased a used Sigma 10-20mm, but the older (screw-drive f4.5) one. I am very happy with it so far. I get great pictures. For me, because it is so wide I still have to think about what is in the shot when composing so I dont include things I didn't want. The zoom comes in handy for that if I cant move to a different position. With the lens hood off you get interesting fish-eye effects on a FF/film body.

meeverett · 02-17-2012, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Adam

We'll also soon be posting a comparison of the Pentax 12-24, Tamron 10-24, and Sigma 12-24, so stay tuned for that!

I was initially drawn here because I am looking to buy a super wide soon and I'm tearing through everything I can regarding this class of lenses. Is there an ETA for this comparison?

Originally posted by lesmore49

I'm more interested in getting good, close up pictures of complete vintage cars....but with little distortion...the 12 -24 gives me this where the 10-20 wouldn't.

I will probably use whatever lens I buy similarly (I like old planes), but I'm curious what kind of distortion you don't get with the 12-24 that a 10-20 might produce? Is it something that can be easily eliminated in software? I'd really like to know, because I'm willing to stretch for a 12-24, but if a 10-20 will work I'd be happy with the cash I'll save on this 10-20.

jezza323 · 02-17-2012, 05:18 AM

I have a K200D and Sigma 10-20mm f4.0-5.6. It is my most used lens and its pretty sharp at f8-f11 or so. It can be a bit harder to compare against other lenses since something at 10mm is so much smaller in the shot compared to 16 or 17mm. Needless to say, I am very happy with it. It was one of the cheapest ultra wide options, and has served me well.

Some of my shots here - Sigma 10-20mm f4.0-5.6 - a set on Flickr

riff · 02-17-2012, 01:03 PM

I adore the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6. I probably have more shots with it that I like then any other lens. ATM if I could only have two lenses this would be one of them. If I could only have one lens... wait wait wait, I can't go there.

The 10-20 lens club thread shows what it can do. It's interesting to note that this thread has more likes then any other lens club thread regardless of total post count.

Light goes in, magic comes out!

lesmore49 · 02-17-2012, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by meeverett

I was initially drawn here because I am looking to buy a super wide soon and I'm tearing through everything I can regarding this class of lenses. Is there an ETA for this comparison?

I will probably use whatever lens I buy similarly (I like old planes), but I'm curious what kind of distortion you don't get with the 12-24 that a 10-20 might produce? Is it something that can be easily eliminated in software? I'd really like to know, because I'm willing to stretch for a 12-24, but if a 10-20 will work I'd be happy with the cash I'll save on this 10-20.

What I mean is that the 12-24 when I use it on vintage cars seems to keep the straight lines...'straight'...if you know what I mean. I don't know if I've explained this very well.

meeverett · 02-17-2012, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by lesmore49

What I mean is that the 12-24 when I use it on vintage cars seems to keep the straight lines...'straight'...if you know what I mean. I don't know if I've explained this very well.

That makes sense. That is actually what I thought you meant, but I figured I should ask just in case. Thanks for the feedback.

lesmore49 · 02-17-2012, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by meeverett

That makes sense. That is actually what I thought you meant, but I figured I should ask just in case. Thanks for the feedback.

I also use my Pentax 10-17 Fisheye @ 17mm and it's not a fish eye and not quite a wide angle at this setting...sort of a hybrid that is closer to a wide angle.

But do I get some great pix @ 17mm of vintage cars. When I go to car shows (outdoor) I usually have 2 bodies...one with the 10-17 FE...the other with the 12-24.

02-16-2012, 08:08 PM	#1
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349	Sigma 10-20mm F 4 ? A friend of mine has a Pentax K200D. He has Pentax lenses...16-45, 50 F 1.4, 55-300. He also has the Pentax kit lenses...18-55 and 50-200 which he doesn't use any more. He's very happy with his equipment. He has a discerning eye and appreciates a sharp picture. Lately he has been mulling over whether or not to buy a Sigma 10-20 mm F 4. But ...if and before he makes the plunge he would like to know if the Sigma matches his Pentax 16-45 in picture quality, reliability and durability. Having never used a Sigma 10-20 before....I can't comment on the qualities of this lens ? What can you tell me about this lens...what do you like...what don't you like...what would you consider to be the stand out qualities of this lens ? Thank you. Les

02-16-2012, 08:13 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,608	41 reviews here: Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database We'll also soon be posting a comparison of the Pentax 12-24, Tamron 10-24, and Sigma 12-24, so stay tuned for that! Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
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
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC J and Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro	runjmb	Sold Items	18	07-19-2011 01:17 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 17-70mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Vivitar S1 105mm 2.5 Macro 1:1	jjdgti	Sold Items	17	08-02-2010 11:05 AM

02-16-2012, 08:29 PM	#3
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam 41 reviews here: Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database We'll also soon be posting a comparison of the Pentax 12-24, Tamron 10-24, and Sigma 12-24, so stay tuned for that! Thanks Adam. I've read the Sigma assessments in the third party databaseand the rating system is very good. In addition I would appreciate, any other comments from members ...over and above ...the Sigma 10-20 info, contained in the third party lenses assessment.. BTW, Adam I'm looking forward to the comparison of the super wides you mentioned. I have a Pentax 12-24 and am very happy with the quality of this lens. I made the decision, based on the PentaxForum Lens evaluation...also from questions...like this thread in this forum and the Popular Photography test...which called the Pentax 12-24...the best of the bunch....in the super wide zoom category

02-16-2012, 08:44 PM	#4
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	It's not clear which 10-20mm Sigma he's interested in, but I find the older 10-20 (slower aperture) to be good quality by my standards. But I'd also rate my 16-45 very similar to my (old, unimproved) 18-55. They're all pretty good at modest apertures. I try to use f9.5-11 with all these lenses, unless I need even more depth of field. Probably 80% of my use of the Sigma is at 10mm, and I wouldn't have been as happy with a 12mm, particularly since I already had the 16-45mm. When I bought my lens the 8mm Sigma hadn't been released yet, but it's certainly worth a consideration. I do make some use use of filters (split ND particularly), which would probably be less convenient with the 8mm. But camera sensors have moved on since my older models, and the dynamic range today might eliminate some of the need for split ND filters. With any lens it's important to buy where you can test and return the lens without difficulty, because quality can vary quite a bit from one copy to another. Incidentally, I don't consider 12mm to be in quite the same category as 10mm, nor 10mm to be in quite the same category as 8mm. 2mm matters at these focal lengths, so these lenses don't really compete directly with each other. Paul

02-16-2012, 09:08 PM	#5
calsan Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,549	Quick summary. It's great for documenting or recording everything in a room in as few shots as possible. So it's a good tool for my work. Very sharp - I would say from f5.6 onwards at 10mm. Could just have 10mm and wouldn't miss the zoom. Star bursts have a broad fan shape to them rather than star shape. Requires an external flash with a diffuser as well due to 110 degree coverage. I'm not so keen on the weight and bulk so I use it minimally when not for work. I'd really prefer a DA15 for travel, for example. Possibly too wide... easy to get lazy with compositions when everything is in the photo.

02-16-2012, 10:21 PM	#6
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349 Original Poster	Originally posted by tibbitts It's not clear which 10-20mm Sigma he's interested in, but I find the older 10-20 (slower aperture) to be good quality by my standards. the older 10-20 which I believe is an F 4...the newer is an F 3.5..think that's right ?But I'd also rate my 16-45 very similar to my (old, unimproved) 18-55. They're all pretty good at modest apertures. I try to use f9.5-11 with all these lenses, unless I need even more depth of field. Probably 80% of my use of the Sigma is at 10mm, and I wouldn't have been as happy with a 12mm, particularly since I already had the 16-45mm. When I bought my lens the 8mm Sigma hadn't been released yet, but it's certainly worth a consideration. I do make some use use of filters (split ND particularly), which would probably be less convenient with the 8mm. But camera sensors have moved on since my older models, and the dynamic range today might eliminate some of the need for split ND filters. With any lens it's important to buy where you can test and return the lens without difficulty, because quality can vary quite a bit from one copy to another. Incidentally, I don't consider 12mm to be in quite the same category as 10mm, nor 10mm to be in quite the same category as 8mm. 2mm matters at these focal lengths, so these lenses don't really compete directly with each other. Paul I know that 2 mm makes a big difference. What I wanted in my case with the 12-24...was not so much sweeping vistas of landscape...I'm more interested in getting good, close up pictures of complete vintage cars....but with little distortion...the 12 -24 gives me this where the 10-20 wouldn't. But my friend is more interested in sweeping vistas than vintage car pix...so leans towards the 10-20.

02-16-2012, 10:31 PM	#7
Chuckie Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Douglas Photos: Albums Posts: 168	I recently purchased a used Sigma 10-20mm, but the older (screw-drive f4.5) one. I am very happy with it so far. I get great pictures. For me, because it is so wide I still have to think about what is in the shot when composing so I dont include things I didn't want. The zoom comes in handy for that if I cant move to a different position. With the lens hood off you get interesting fish-eye effects on a FF/film body.

02-17-2012, 01:19 AM	#8
meeverett Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Maryville, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 128	Originally posted by Adam We'll also soon be posting a comparison of the Pentax 12-24, Tamron 10-24, and Sigma 12-24, so stay tuned for that! I was initially drawn here because I am looking to buy a super wide soon and I'm tearing through everything I can regarding this class of lenses. Is there an ETA for this comparison? Originally posted by lesmore49 I'm more interested in getting good, close up pictures of complete vintage cars....but with little distortion...the 12 -24 gives me this where the 10-20 wouldn't. I will probably use whatever lens I buy similarly (I like old planes), but I'm curious what kind of distortion you don't get with the 12-24 that a 10-20 might produce? Is it something that can be easily eliminated in software? I'd really like to know, because I'm willing to stretch for a 12-24, but if a 10-20 will work I'd be happy with the cash I'll save on this 10-20.

02-17-2012, 05:18 AM	#9
jezza323 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,421	I have a K200D and Sigma 10-20mm f4.0-5.6. It is my most used lens and its pretty sharp at f8-f11 or so. It can be a bit harder to compare against other lenses since something at 10mm is so much smaller in the shot compared to 16 or 17mm. Needless to say, I am very happy with it. It was one of the cheapest ultra wide options, and has served me well. Some of my shots here - Sigma 10-20mm f4.0-5.6 - a set on Flickr

02-17-2012, 01:03 PM	#10
riff Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,408	I adore the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6. I probably have more shots with it that I like then any other lens. ATM if I could only have two lenses this would be one of them. If I could only have one lens... wait wait wait, I can't go there. The 10-20 lens club thread shows what it can do. It's interesting to note that this thread has more likes then any other lens club thread regardless of total post count. Light goes in, magic comes out!

02-17-2012, 01:58 PM	#11
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349 Original Poster	Originally posted by meeverett I was initially drawn here because I am looking to buy a super wide soon and I'm tearing through everything I can regarding this class of lenses. Is there an ETA for this comparison? I will probably use whatever lens I buy similarly (I like old planes), but I'm curious what kind of distortion you don't get with the 12-24 that a 10-20 might produce? Is it something that can be easily eliminated in software? I'd really like to know, because I'm willing to stretch for a 12-24, but if a 10-20 will work I'd be happy with the cash I'll save on this 10-20. What I mean is that the 12-24 when I use it on vintage cars seems to keep the straight lines...'straight'...if you know what I mean. I don't know if I've explained this very well.

02-17-2012, 02:48 PM	#12
meeverett Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Maryville, TN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 128	Originally posted by lesmore49 What I mean is that the 12-24 when I use it on vintage cars seems to keep the straight lines...'straight'...if you know what I mean. I don't know if I've explained this very well. That makes sense. That is actually what I thought you meant, but I figured I should ask just in case. Thanks for the feedback.

02-17-2012, 03:27 PM	#13
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349 Original Poster	Originally posted by meeverett That makes sense. That is actually what I thought you meant, but I figured I should ask just in case. Thanks for the feedback. I also use my Pentax 10-17 Fisheye @ 17mm and it's not a fish eye and not quite a wide angle at this setting...sort of a hybrid that is closer to a wide angle. But do I get some great pix @ 17mm of vintage cars. When I go to car shows (outdoor) I usually have 2 bodies...one with the 10-17 FE...the other with the 12-24.