Sigma 10-20 or 17-50?

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-07-2015, 07:23 AM - **1 Like**

I'm not sure who's saying that the 10-20mm lacks for sharpness, but my copy was very sharp. Photozone also came to the same conclusions when they tested the Nikon mount, stating:

"The center performance is exceptionally high at all tested focal lengths and aperture settings. At 10mm the border performance is easily on a very good level whereas the extreme corners show some softness at f/4. However, they catch up nicely by f/5.6 (very good). The lens is able to keep up the very good border performance at 14mm and 20mm. Quite impressive all-in-all."

Pictures are so much better than just words in this kind of discussion, so here are a few old pictures from my 10-20mm. The first couple were just test images, but they show good sharpness wide open at the extreme wide end. Please note that all of the pictures were shot handheld, and some of them were at very slow shutter speeds, so it is possible that a tripod would have made things even sharper. The first image, for example, was shot at 1/6 second. Click on any of the images for the full-size uncropped 100% pixel-peeping approved image.

I mostly used mine at 10mm, but I also included a shot at 20mm to show that it also worked well at the long end.

**clackers** · 10-07-2015, 04:30 PM

Edgar, I love carrying about three zooms - Sigma 10-20, Sigma 17-50, Pentax 50-135. Your pics are a reminder why.

psychdoc · 10-07-2015, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by gerax

Can't decide between these two. I'm looking for a lens primarily for landscapes and streets, but also for occasional portraits.

Not sure how you would use the 10-20 for portraits but I rented this and the pentax 12-24. The 10-20 had terrible distortion between 10-12 and just did not feel good in the hands. The 12-24 is a very nice lens, has some issues with CA but I enjoyed using it and wound up buying it later. [I also have the sigma 17-50 and pentax 50-135 and these three zooms work great]

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-07-2015, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by psychdoc

Not sure how you would use the 10-20 for portraits but I rented this and the pentax 12-24. The 10-20 had terrible distortion between 10-12 and just did not feel good in the hands. The 12-24 is a very nice lens, has some issues with CA but I enjoyed using it and wound up buying it later.

Yeah, the 12-24 will have no problems with distortions in the 10-12 range!

But when you say it had distortions, what do you mean? Are you saying there was something wrong with your copy, or was it something that was just the nature of the 10-20mm?

Originally posted by clackers

Edgar, I love carrying about three zooms - Sigma 10-20, Sigma 17-50, Pentax 50-135. Your pics are a reminder why.

I also favor a three lens kit. When I had the 10-20mm, my three lenses were usually the Sigma 10-20mm, the 30mm 1.4, and the 50-150mm 2.8. More recently, my three lens kit was the Sigma 8-16mm, 30mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.4.

But now that I'm wanting to go lighter, I picked up a Panasonic GX7 and have been carrying around the 20mm 1.7 and 75mm 1.8, with the 9mm fisheye body-cap lens for wide end. All three of those lenses could fit inside my Sigma 85mm!

I'm still trying to decide between the Olympus 9-18mm (smaller/less expensive) and the Panasonic 7-14mm f4 (larger/more expensive/best image quality) for my UWA.

Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 10-07-2015 at 05:23 PM.

Electric Eye · 10-10-2015, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by gerax

Hi all

Can't decide between these two. I'm looking for a lens primarily for landscapes and streets, but also for occasional portraits.
I've been set on the 10-20 for some time as I'm currently using the 18-55 kit lens on my second camera (k-01) which would also be the main body for this lens.
But then I saw some shots done with the 17-50 by a fellow member here on the board and was impressed by the sharpness which looks better than on the 10-20. Plus it's faster at 2.8.

Considering my current 18-55 kit, am I going to get perceivable improvement in the width with the 17-50? Or should I stick to the 10-20 for dramatic wide panoramas?

Thanx

...I have the original 10-20mm Siggy and I really like it,but I really consider it sort of a special effects lens because of the distortion it produces at close proximity,not horrible for landscapes but it is a bit soft imho,so for the amount of time it sits in the case I would go for the 17-50mm as it can wear many hats and do it in low light to boot.Buy both if you have the cash 💰

---------- Post added 10-10-2015 at 08:43 AM ----------

...the 10-20mm is definitely not for close up portraits unless your going for the funhouse mirror look!...lol

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-10-2015, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Electric Eye

the 10-20mm is definitely not for close up portraits unless your going for the funhouse mirror look!...lol

Yeah, distortion is the inevitable trade off for such a wide angle. On non-human subjects it usually is not a big deal, or can even be desirable, but for people it can be very weird. But if you keep your human subjects near the center of the frame at the extreme wide angle, it can be okay.

MrCynical · 10-10-2015, 04:29 PM

Depending on which version of the 10-20 you're talking about you might want to make a decision soon: the older (and slower, but sharper) version is now discontinued and stores are selling off their last stocks of it.

tibbitts · 10-10-2015, 05:59 PM

We really need to clarify which sigma 10-20mm everyone is posting about. As far as I know, there is now only one: the f3.5. But there may be copies of the old 4-5.6 version still available from some sources, so if you want a new one, you'd need to find one to buy today, not tomorrow.

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-10-2015, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by tibbitts

We really need to clarify which sigma 10-20mm everyone is posting about. As far as I know, there is now only one: the f3.5. But there may be copies of the old 4-5.6 version still available from some sources, so if you want a new one, you'd need to find one to buy today, not tomorrow.

Yeah, I had the old version since the newer f/3.5 version seemed to get mixed reviews. And as far as availability, there's always the used market.

tibbitts · 10-10-2015, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy

Yeah, I had the old version since the newer f/3.5 version seemed to get mixed reviews. And as far as availability, there's always the used market.

It seems that there have been an above average number of reports of decentering for at least the older version of the 10-20, so it would be important to buy from a source (new or used) that will readily accept returns.

Edgar_in_Indy · 10-11-2015, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by tibbitts

It seems that there have been an above average number of reports of decentering for at least the older version of the 10-20, so it would be important to buy from a source (new or used) that will readily accept returns.

eBay allows buyers to return a used lens even when there's nothing wrong with it.

psychdoc · 10-13-2015, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy

Yeah, the 12-24 will have no problems with distortions in the 10-12 range!

But when you say it had distortions, what do you mean? Are you saying there was something wrong with your copy, or was it something that was just the nature of the 10-20mm?[COLOR="Silver"]

Maybe just the nature of really wide angle. Wider than 12 was not to my liking. There was no point [for me] if I was going to only use it starting at 12. Not sure if wider than 12 from another manufacturer would have made a difference as I have not shot with any other or in full frame.

10-07-2015, 07:23 AM - 1 Like	#16
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	I'm not sure who's saying that the 10-20mm lacks for sharpness, but my copy was very sharp. Photozone also came to the same conclusions when they tested the Nikon mount, stating: "The center performance is exceptionally high at all tested focal lengths and aperture settings. At 10mm the border performance is easily on a very good level whereas the extreme corners show some softness at f/4. However, they catch up nicely by f/5.6 (very good). The lens is able to keep up the very good border performance at 14mm and 20mm. Quite impressive all-in-all." Pictures are so much better than just words in this kind of discussion, so here are a few old pictures from my 10-20mm. The first couple were just test images, but they show good sharpness wide open at the extreme wide end. Please note that all of the pictures were shot handheld, and some of them were at very slow shutter speeds, so it is possible that a tripod would have made things even sharper. The first image, for example, was shot at 1/6 second. Click on any of the images for the full-size uncropped 100% pixel-peeping approved image. I mostly used mine at 10mm, but I also included a shot at 20mm to show that it also worked well at the long end.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K-5, Sigma 50-150/2.8, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS and extras	JohsonChou	Sold Items	9	10-28-2014 06:53 PM
weddings sigma 17-50 vs sigma 10-20 + DA35	nicoprod	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	07-07-2012 09:13 PM
Pentax 10-17 or Sigma 10-20 ?	kheldour	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	05-11-2011 07:10 AM
Pentax 10-17 or Sigma 10-20?	jianshi	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	03-27-2008 07:28 PM

10-07-2015, 04:30 PM	#17
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Edgar, I love carrying about three zooms - Sigma 10-20, Sigma 17-50, Pentax 50-135. Your pics are a reminder why.

10-07-2015, 05:09 PM	#18
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949	Originally posted by gerax Can't decide between these two. I'm looking for a lens primarily for landscapes and streets, but also for occasional portraits. Not sure how you would use the 10-20 for portraits but I rented this and the pentax 12-24. The 10-20 had terrible distortion between 10-12 and just did not feel good in the hands. The 12-24 is a very nice lens, has some issues with CA but I enjoyed using it and wound up buying it later. [I also have the sigma 17-50 and pentax 50-135 and these three zooms work great]

10-07-2015, 05:15 PM	#19
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by psychdoc Not sure how you would use the 10-20 for portraits but I rented this and the pentax 12-24. The 10-20 had terrible distortion between 10-12 and just did not feel good in the hands. The 12-24 is a very nice lens, has some issues with CA but I enjoyed using it and wound up buying it later. Yeah, the 12-24 will have no problems with distortions in the 10-12 range! But when you say it had distortions, what do you mean? Are you saying there was something wrong with your copy, or was it something that was just the nature of the 10-20mm? Originally posted by clackers Edgar, I love carrying about three zooms - Sigma 10-20, Sigma 17-50, Pentax 50-135. Your pics are a reminder why. I also favor a three lens kit. When I had the 10-20mm, my three lenses were usually the Sigma 10-20mm, the 30mm 1.4, and the 50-150mm 2.8. More recently, my three lens kit was the Sigma 8-16mm, 30mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.4. But now that I'm wanting to go lighter, I picked up a Panasonic GX7 and have been carrying around the 20mm 1.7 and 75mm 1.8, with the 9mm fisheye body-cap lens for wide end. All three of those lenses could fit inside my Sigma 85mm! I'm still trying to decide between the Olympus 9-18mm (smaller/less expensive) and the Panasonic 7-14mm f4 (larger/more expensive/best image quality) for my UWA. Last edited by Edgar_in_Indy; 10-07-2015 at 05:23 PM.

10-10-2015, 04:37 AM	#20
Electric Eye Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 238	Originally posted by gerax Hi all Can't decide between these two. I'm looking for a lens primarily for landscapes and streets, but also for occasional portraits. I've been set on the 10-20 for some time as I'm currently using the 18-55 kit lens on my second camera (k-01) which would also be the main body for this lens. But then I saw some shots done with the 17-50 by a fellow member here on the board and was impressed by the sharpness which looks better than on the 10-20. Plus it's faster at 2.8. Considering my current 18-55 kit, am I going to get perceivable improvement in the width with the 17-50? Or should I stick to the 10-20 for dramatic wide panoramas? Thanx ...I have the original 10-20mm Siggy and I really like it,but I really consider it sort of a special effects lens because of the distortion it produces at close proximity,not horrible for landscapes but it is a bit soft imho,so for the amount of time it sits in the case I would go for the 17-50mm as it can wear many hats and do it in low light to boot.Buy both if you have the cash 💰 ---------- Post added 10-10-2015 at 08:43 AM ---------- ...the 10-20mm is definitely not for close up portraits unless your going for the funhouse mirror look!...lol

10-10-2015, 05:29 AM	#21
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by Electric Eye the 10-20mm is definitely not for close up portraits unless your going for the funhouse mirror look!...lol Yeah, distortion is the inevitable trade off for such a wide angle. On non-human subjects it usually is not a big deal, or can even be desirable, but for people it can be very weird. But if you keep your human subjects near the center of the frame at the extreme wide angle, it can be okay.

10-10-2015, 04:29 PM	#22
MrCynical Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 132	Depending on which version of the 10-20 you're talking about you might want to make a decision soon: the older (and slower, but sharper) version is now discontinued and stores are selling off their last stocks of it.

10-10-2015, 05:59 PM	#23
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	We really need to clarify which sigma 10-20mm everyone is posting about. As far as I know, there is now only one: the f3.5. But there may be copies of the old 4-5.6 version still available from some sources, so if you want a new one, you'd need to find one to buy today, not tomorrow.

10-10-2015, 07:17 PM	#24
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by tibbitts We really need to clarify which sigma 10-20mm everyone is posting about. As far as I know, there is now only one: the f3.5. But there may be copies of the old 4-5.6 version still available from some sources, so if you want a new one, you'd need to find one to buy today, not tomorrow. Yeah, I had the old version since the newer f/3.5 version seemed to get mixed reviews. And as far as availability, there's always the used market.

10-10-2015, 08:56 PM	#25
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,196	Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Yeah, I had the old version since the newer f/3.5 version seemed to get mixed reviews. And as far as availability, there's always the used market. It seems that there have been an above average number of reports of decentering for at least the older version of the 10-20, so it would be important to buy from a source (new or used) that will readily accept returns.

10-11-2015, 11:29 AM	#26
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by tibbitts It seems that there have been an above average number of reports of decentering for at least the older version of the 10-20, so it would be important to buy from a source (new or used) that will readily accept returns. eBay allows buyers to return a used lens even when there's nothing wrong with it.

10-13-2015, 06:48 PM	#27
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949	Originally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Yeah, the 12-24 will have no problems with distortions in the 10-12 range! But when you say it had distortions, what do you mean? Are you saying there was something wrong with your copy, or was it something that was just the nature of the 10-20mm?[COLOR="Silver"] Maybe just the nature of really wide angle. Wider than 12 was not to my liking. There was no point [for me] if I was going to only use it starting at 12. Not sure if wider than 12 from another manufacturer would have made a difference as I have not shot with any other or in full frame.