[mikeSF]

i think you may be splitting hairs as there seems to be no stand alone winner between the two. I have the original version and have never found sharpness to be lacking. I do shoot a bit with the sun in the frame and will switch to the DA15 for much better flare handling and a great sun star. You may want to have the 15 in addition to whichever 10-20 you select.
good luck!

here is an album of my 10-20 (4-5.6) shots if you are interested:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeoria/albums/72157629063765237

[FantasticMrFox]

I have the f 4 version and have been very pleased with its performance on my K 5. I've made 16 x 24 prints from files shot with it and the edge performance is excellent, as is the overall sharpness. And yes, the filters are expensive! although I'd pass (perhaps) on a circular polarizer since the lens' wide coverage (beware your feet in the frame!) may well give you strange sky effects. All in all, one of my favorite lenses, for such duty. My usual kit is the 10 - 20, the kit lens 18 - 55 WR, and the 50-200 WR. Covers most needs.

Thanks for the input. I already have a very good 77 mm CPL and ND1000, so that definitely pushes me towards the f/4-5.6. The HSM and quick shift pushes me towards the f/3.5. So it's mostly down to the optical performance.

i think you may be splitting hairs as there seems to be no stand alone winner between the two.

Yep, but I thought asking people on here would be a better method to decide than flipping a coin

You may want to have the 15 in addition to whichever 10-20 you select.

For that amount of money I might as well get the DA 12-24 Can't really afford a 10-20 and DA 15 Ltd.

here is an album of my 10-20 (4-5.6) shots if you are interested:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeoria/albums/72157629063765237

If the 10-20 f/4-5.6 can produce such images, it should be more than good enough for me.

[realitarian]

"And take it from a (soon to be) psychology graduate"

Well, congratulations!!

[Driline]

i think you may be splitting hairs as there seems to be no stand alone winner between the two. I have the original version and have never found sharpness to be lacking. I do shoot a bit with the sun in the frame and will switch to the DA15 for much better flare handling and a great sun star. You may want to have the 15 in addition to whichever 10-20 you select.
good luck!

here is an album of my 10-20 (4-5.6) shots if you are interested:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeoria/albums/72157629063765237

Wow...gorgeous pictures. Your Siggy looks like it exhibits what mine does a little. A bit soft in the upper left hand corners but otherwise a very sharp lens.

[Des]

Nice specific question Mr Fox, so true to the PF tradition here's a different tack.

Have you also considered the DA 10-17 Fisheye? Not very fishy towards 17mm, and can be de-fished in PP. Lightweight, compact, relatively cheap and seemingly quite sharp. (Never used it, just going on the comments of those who have it.)
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/311667-need...mendation.html
And very wide coverage:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/235102-uwa-...omparison.html

There was a recent thread comparing de-fished images from the 10-17 with those from good rectilineal ultra-wides, and the 10-17 performed very well. (I can't find it but maybe someone can.)

[mgvh]

I have the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. I like it. I use it. But it's sometimes a bit big to carry around, so I compared it to the DA 10-17 Fisheye. Yes, it's a fun fisheye, but it's nearly rectilinear from 14-17 (and is about equal to 12-15 rectilinear), and it can be defished when needed. HERE is my comparison. Take a look at the last post where I have some 10 and 11mm examples uncorrected.
The DA 10-17 FE won't be the best if architecture is your primary subject (where straight lines are desired), but I do carry it around more often... though I haven't been able to part with the Sigma 10-20!

[furryurry]

I like my 4-5.6 version, one thing I don't like about it is the starbursts it gives me because of it's 6 aperture blades, f/3.5 has 7. I've had 50mm HSM and it's nice not to hear the autofocus. If I had the money at the time I would probably get the f/3.5 one but not because it's sharper ( I don't know if it is).

[dcBear78]

What is flare? 3.5 version


Floods by Crew One Photography, on Flickr

[Des]

HERE is my comparison

That's the one I was thinking of. And what an excellent thread it is @mgvh.

[Racer X 69]

I have both zoom and fixed wide angles. The DA10~17. The Sigma 4.5mm Circular Fisheye.


I find with the DA I almost always use it at 10mm. It is a great lens, I'm able to take advantage of situations where longer lenses just don't work. But no way to really use filters with it.


The Sigma has a slip on piece for the front that has filter threads, and I've used a polarizer and neutral density filters with it, but it vignettes some. Without it attached the lens can cover more than below the horizon with the camera pointed straight up. A fun lens for creative work.


My .02 cents.

[FantasticMrFox]

I have the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. I like it. I use it. But it's sometimes a bit big to carry around, so I compared it to the DA 10-17 Fisheye. Yes, it's a fun fisheye, but it's nearly rectilinear from 14-17 (and is about equal to 12-15 rectilinear), and it can be defished when needed. HERE is my comparison.

A good thread, but it looks like by defishing I would lose a precious 2 mm, and the lens doesn't take filters, which is kind of a deal breaker.

I like my 4-5.6 version, one thing I don't like about it is the starbursts it gives me because of it's 6 aperture blades, f/3.5 has 7.

Interesting point I hadn't thought about so far.

[08amczb]

I have the Sigma F3.5 version and DA10-17 Fisheye.
The 10mm is wide enough in general, so I rarly use the 10-17 defished.
I've went for the F3.5 becouse I use it for some event photography, so I need the speed. Otherwise it's big and heavy, I mean realy fat, it's hard to get into my camera bag, But I like it.

[mgvh]

A good thread, but it looks like by defishing I would lose a precious 2 mm, and the lens doesn't take filters, which is kind of a deal breaker.

The DA 10-17 FE at 10mm and defished gives close to an 8mm rectilinear field of view. The DA 10-17 at 12 or 13mm defished matches the Sigma 10-20 at 10mm. (You're going to lose some pixels cropping off the edges, but it can actually come out looking a bit better since the Sigma at 10mm is doing a lot of optical work getting its edges in line. I.e., the Sigma does with the physics of the glass what can be done with the DA and the manipulations of the software.)
You are right about the DA 10-17 not taking filters. There are times when you may want to use a neutral density filter, but with that wide of a field of view, it's hard to use a circular polarizing filter.

[FantasticMrFox]

You are right about the DA 10-17 not taking filters. There are times when you may want to use a neutral density filter, but with that wide of a field of view, it's hard to use a circular polarizing filter.

Yes, I was rather thinking of NDs and maybe ND grads in the future.

[Biro]

Just a thought for the OP... both of the Sigma 10-20mm UWA zooms come from the era before Sigma began making its current higher-quality ART series of lenses. That doesn't mean the older lenses are bad, mind you. I have a few older Sigmas myself and they serve my purposes just fine. But it is likely that you might find greater sample variation among the older glass. I suspect this variation, along with personal preferences on the part of reviewers, accounts for much of the uneven results in reviews for both 10-20mm lenses.

If you can try out a lens before purchasing or if your photo shop has an excellent return policy, buy one or both and try it out. In user reviews of older Sigmas one often reads that a given lens was great - once the reviewer returned his or her first copy for a second one. I personally own the Pentax 12-24. All things being roughly equal, if I were to go for one of the Sigmas I'd probably opt for the f/3.5 version. More light is better than less, right?