[Luke_]

Im after a 10-20mm (or there abouts) wide angle lens, with 10mm being at its widest.

Although I do not want a fisheye lens, im after a lens for landscape photography.

Now I see there are two real choices I have..

Sigma 10-20 mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM (non hsm for pentax + sony)

Or

Sigma 10-20 mm F3.5 EX DC HSM

Now my question is, will the first one be good enough, or do you reckon its worth saving to get HSM and f3.5?

Anyone here uses either lens?

Will I really need HSM as I have built in IS and AF within the body of my camera?

[dandog]

well if your using a pentax body im pretty sure there is no hsm function
more of a nikon,canon thing.
i just got the sigma 10-20mm 4/5.6 version and im fully stoked,im guessing that if you do alot of indoor photography the newer version will suit.

[Marc Sabatella]

Does "thereabouts" not include the DA12-24? Or are you really sure 12mm isn't wide enough? Not sure if you're a very experienced photographer who knows his own unique needs, or a less experienced one who doesn't realize that very few landscape photos are taken anywhere *near* that wide...

[ivoire]

The early 10-20mm Sigma was a good lens, but the DA 12-24 is better IQ-wise. I don't have any hands-on knowledge of the IQ of the new Sigma 10-20mm.

[kristoffon]

well if your using a pentax body im pretty sure there is no hsm function
more of a nikon,canon thing.

get informed

many sigma lenses for pentax have hsm such as the 70-200

any new lens will have it

[pb_red]

luke, read up on hsm and what it does. like kristoffon said, hsm is available for the pentax mount when used with k100d super and later bodies. it's same as pentax SDM and not related to IS.

for landscape photography my 15mm is plenty wide. if i had anything wider i would only use it for that warped perspective effect.

the really wide angle shots you see out there are more likely to be panoramas that were stitched together than photos taken with extremely wide angle lenses.

[interested_observer]

I have the 12-24 and like it very much. It is on my camera quite a bit of the time. I have also seen some pretty amazing images from the Sigma. There are 2 main differences 1) co$t and 2) 2.5 degrees in field of view. They are both about the same size and weight.

The 12-24 is 100 degrees wide with the 10-20 being 102.5. To me the additional 2.5 degrees, at this width did not matter that much.

I almost purchased the 10-20, but held off and spent the additional funds. The images I saw from the Sigma were wonderful and had great colors. However, I just liked the Pentax colors a touch better and waited - saving more to get the 12-24.

I have the K100 and the K20, so all of my lenses are screw drive and not SDM or HSM, so that they can move from body to body.

... hope that helps...

[pentaxman]

I have a Sigma 10-20 and I use 10mm most of the time. When I want an ultrawide angle, 12mm is not enough. A lot of the time, I find myself trying to zoom out when I am at 10mm. After owning a 10-20, I could never go back to a lens with just 12mm. At 10feet the 10mm has a 4ft wider field of view. This is very important, particularly when you are indoors.

[axl]

As others have said, 10mm is not that great for landscapes. I mean it lets you take stunninng shots but framing and composition of landscape at 10mm is rather difficult. I seldom use my 10-20 (first version) for landscapes, usually I take 24mm instead. But where 10mm excells is travelling. Especialy historic locations and indoors. In those situations 10mm is irreplacible. F.e. in Egypt it let me take shots I would have not imagine possible without it. And with combinnation with PS trannsform tool and cropping you ccan get great naturaly looking shots in very difficult situations. IMHO Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 represents outstanding value for the money. COmbined with 10 (or higher) mpx sensor it delivers plenty of detail and sharpness.
If you would like to see some examples from Egypt, just go to my PBase page/travelling/Egypt. It was theree where I really apreciated the capabilities of this lens, although it gave me many nice shots before.

BR
Peter

[Jewelltrail]

I own the Sigma 10-20mm (Original version)--it is a great lens. I agree with much of what Axl says about the lens. I sometimes use its 17-20mm reach for landscapes though, with impressive results. However, more of my landscape shots are done at longer focal lengths.

[Marc Sabatella]

I have a Sigma 10-20 and I use 10mm most of the time. When I want an ultrawide angle, 12mm is not enough. A lot of the time, I find myself trying to zoom out when I am at 10mm. After owning a 10-20, I could never go back to a lens with just 12mm. At 10feet the 10mm has a 4ft wider field of view. This is very important, particularly when you are indoors.

But often correspondingly less important outdoors, where most landscape photography is performed :-)

[Greeneg]

You might also want to consider the Tamron 10-24 which is a little faster and I have had good results with.

[aleonx3]

I have the 12-24 and like it very much. It is on my camera quite a bit of the time. I have also seen some pretty amazing images from the Sigma. There are 2 main differences 1) co$t and 2) 2.5 degrees in field of view. They are both about the same size and weight.

The 12-24 is 100 degrees wide with the 10-20 being 102.5. To me the additional 2.5 degrees, at this width did not matter that much.

I almost purchased the 10-20, but held off and spent the additional funds. The images I saw from the Sigma were wonderful and had great colors. However, I just liked the Pentax colors a touch better and waited - saving more to get the 12-24.

I have the K100 and the K20, so all of my lenses are screw drive and not SDM or HSM, so that they can move from body to body.

... hope that helps...

I will chime in since I too was in similar situation about a year ago deciding on whether I should get a Sigma 10-20mm vs the pentax 12-24mm. My decision is based on this: out of the those two ranges, how often do I use 10mm and how often do I use 24mm. I felt that 24mm is my heavily used end unless I am in a tight situation where I cannot move back. The wider end would also give more distortion. Although since my K10D is an APS-C with crop factor, it is really not that wide for 12mm.

Another thing to consider is the constant F4 which I find to be more useful; the Pentax 12-24mm is really sharp at f4 as testified by other posters on this board. So, to me, the extra few bucks for Pentax is worth it. I don't know if this DA lens will be good for FF (when Pentax have a FF body), it will be icing on the cake.

Anyway, either one you choose, Sigma or Pentax, you can't go wrong - you choice will depend on your shooting style and type of photography.

[MikePerham]

I have a Sigma 10-20 and I use 10mm most of the time. When I want an ultrawide angle, 12mm is not enough. A lot of the time, I find myself trying to zoom out when I am at 10mm. After owning a 10-20, I could never go back to a lens with just 12mm. At 10feet the 10mm has a 4ft wider field of view. This is very important, particularly when you are indoors.

Frankly, I do not see these super wides as useful indoors where you are either shooting people or architecture, in either case not subjects one would want to see distortion that is typical of any superwide. I would be quite happy with a 12mm prime if Pentax were to bring one out, hopefully in the DA* line. I used a 20mm in my 35mm film days and found that plenty wide so 18mm would be great. Currently my 16-50 is as wide as I can go and I have been holding off to see what Pentax would bring out in the DA* line (11-16 f2.8???) or a good prime wider than the DA 14mm (not sufficiently wider that 16 to justify the cost). My use of a superwide would be for landscape only, my 16-50 does for indoor work.

[axl]

Frankly, I do not see these super wides as useful indoors where you are either shooting people or architecture, in either case not subjects one would want to see distortion that is typical of any superwide. I would be quite happy with a 12mm prime if Pentax were to bring one out, hopefully in the DA* line. I used a 20mm in my 35mm film days and found that plenty wide so 18mm would be great. Currently my 16-50 is as wide as I can go and I have been holding off to see what Pentax would bring out in the DA* line (11-16 f2.8???) or a good prime wider than the DA 14mm (not sufficiently wider that 16 to justify the cost). My use of a superwide would be for landscape only, my 16-50 does for indoor work.

I agree on the good prime theory. Idealy 10/11/12 f4. But I disagree that ultrawide aren't very useful indoors. Especialy for architecture they are. But if you know how, than even for people.

BR
Peter