Of course it depends on what you shoot, but I have run across many thread where people have the wrong idea about even that. To the question is "what super-wide should I get to shoot landscapes?" I answer "none". A wide angle makes objects recede into the background, pushing everything away from you. This has the effect of turning a mountain into a mole-hill, which is generally not the desired effect. Many great landscape photos have been shot with normal lenses or even short telephotos, since these compress perspective and emphasise the shape of the landscape very well. (If you want more width, stitch yourself a panorama.)
I have had great luck with the DA16-45 at both ends of the focal length, but generally not as wide as 16mm for landscapes. I recommend it over the kit lens for the better resolution at the edges.
There are those who love super-wides for the "one big thing in the foreground and everything else in the background" type shots. Those do win contests but get a bit boring after a while.
Super-wides are very useful for interiors so you can fit everything in. Here in Europe they are a necessity for streets as well. But I find they take careful composition.
I am not impressed with the IQ of the wide end of the Sigma 10-20mm, nor its plasticky build, and so instead got the DA 12-24mm which has great IQ everywhere. Mind you, there is inevitable loss of quality when so much information has to get into such a small piece of glass. This lens also has the distinct advantage of going up to 24mm, which I find to be a great focal length for general street photography. (After all, it equates to film 35mm.)
Here is a
set of shots I just posted from this lens.
So my answer, based on the available technology, is 12mm.