Which Sigma ultrawide?

MrCynical · 04-22-2010, 06:25 PM

Topic says it all really! Since the DA 12-24mm is now silly money here in the UK, I'm looking quite seriously at the Sigma 10-20mm. The price difference between the two versions of it is 'only' £50 (about $75 US), so I'm really after whichever of the two is the better lens.

jct us101 · 04-22-2010, 07:44 PM

I would say that the old one is a better value for the price, considering you can get it for like $350 now used, but the new one is a bit sharper and has less distortion, and not to mention the larger aperture which is constant through the range.

**Clinton** · 04-22-2010, 08:43 PM

Right now? I'd hold out for the 8-16mm wide angle.

Pentaxor · 04-22-2010, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by MrCynical

Topic says it all really! Since the DA 12-24mm is now silly money here in the UK, I'm looking quite seriously at the Sigma 10-20mm. The price difference between the two versions of it is 'only' £50 (about $75 US), so I'm really after whichever of the two is the better lens.

I think you should wait for the 8-16mm.

Derridale · 04-23-2010, 06:08 AM - **1 Like**

I've had my 10-20 for well over two years now (obviously the older model) and have been very happy with it.

But being a gadget freak with a VERY severe case of LBA, I have the new 8-16 on order from Adorama already. It will be interesting to compare the two.

But on the original topic, I must admit to not being concerned about the slight wide-open advantage of the newer 10-20, as I rarely use mine anywhere near wide open. I usually have it around the f/8-f/11 range. I also have a Hoya Pro circular polarizer filter - the one with the extrenely thin bezel. I get minimal vignetting with it, and it is great for landscape shots, or just general walkabout stuff on a very bright day, like the weather here in Australia much of the time.

So, in summary - if you can't wait, get the older 10-20 for less money. If you can wait, and money isn't a problem, then hang on for the 8-16.

MrCynical · 04-23-2010, 08:20 AM

Hmm, I've just looked at the Photozone reviews (both on Nikon, so that the comparison is fair) and I actually like the look of the Old Sigma's 10mm distortion better. It also seems to have better resolution (esp. in the corners, which are dreadful on the new one). Obviously technical reviews aren't everything, but the numbers do seem to support the general wisdom that the old one is actually the better lens for landscape use.

axl · 04-23-2010, 01:54 PM - **1 Like**

I have old one. I was tempted by new one simply because of f3.5 at 20mm. No other reason. But I haven't found review (so far) that would rate it higher than the old (4-5.6) version. And the pictures provided on Photozone when they tested it for Nikon are pretty dreadfull IMO...

so I'm sticking to my old rusty trusty slow version...

View Poll Results: Which Sigma 10-20 is better?
The old one (Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6)	10	71.43%
The new one (Sigma 10-20mm f3.5)	4	28.57%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

04-22-2010, 06:25 PM	#1
MrCynical Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 132	Which Sigma ultrawide? Topic says it all really! Since the DA 12-24mm is now silly money here in the UK, I'm looking quite seriously at the Sigma 10-20mm. The price difference between the two versions of it is 'only' £50 (about $75 US), so I'm really after whichever of the two is the better lens.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thoughts: K30D, APS-H, Ultrawide lenses	jfsavage	Pentax News and Rumors	59	02-16-2009 10:51 AM
Ultrawide zoom recommendation for Infrared	jfsavage	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	11-18-2008 05:06 AM
For Sale - Sold: FS: FA 77mm limited, Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro, Sigma 70-300mm APO DG	chemxaj	Sold Items	10	03-17-2008 08:55 AM
Cideway, UltraWide, RodConn: Panning and SR question	HelenEdith	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	05-28-2007 05:34 AM

04-22-2010, 07:44 PM	#2
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	I would say that the old one is a better value for the price, considering you can get it for like $350 now used, but the new one is a bit sharper and has less distortion, and not to mention the larger aperture which is constant through the range.

04-22-2010, 08:43 PM	#3
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,910	Right now? I'd hold out for the 8-16mm wide angle.

04-22-2010, 10:03 PM	#4
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by MrCynical Topic says it all really! Since the DA 12-24mm is now silly money here in the UK, I'm looking quite seriously at the Sigma 10-20mm. The price difference between the two versions of it is 'only' £50 (about $75 US), so I'm really after whichever of the two is the better lens. I think you should wait for the 8-16mm.

04-23-2010, 06:08 AM - 1 Like	#5
Derridale Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 412	I've had my 10-20 for well over two years now (obviously the older model) and have been very happy with it. But being a gadget freak with a VERY severe case of LBA, I have the new 8-16 on order from Adorama already. It will be interesting to compare the two. But on the original topic, I must admit to not being concerned about the slight wide-open advantage of the newer 10-20, as I rarely use mine anywhere near wide open. I usually have it around the f/8-f/11 range. I also have a Hoya Pro circular polarizer filter - the one with the extrenely thin bezel. I get minimal vignetting with it, and it is great for landscape shots, or just general walkabout stuff on a very bright day, like the weather here in Australia much of the time. So, in summary - if you can't wait, get the older 10-20 for less money. If you can wait, and money isn't a problem, then hang on for the 8-16.

04-23-2010, 08:20 AM	#6
MrCynical Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 132 Original Poster	Hmm, I've just looked at the Photozone reviews (both on Nikon, so that the comparison is fair) and I actually like the look of the Old Sigma's 10mm distortion better. It also seems to have better resolution (esp. in the corners, which are dreadful on the new one). Obviously technical reviews aren't everything, but the numbers do seem to support the general wisdom that the old one is actually the better lens for landscape use.

04-23-2010, 01:54 PM - 1 Like	#7
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	I have old one. I was tempted by new one simply because of f3.5 at 20mm. No other reason. But I haven't found review (so far) that would rate it higher than the old (4-5.6) version. And the pictures provided on Photozone when they tested it for Nikon are pretty dreadfull IMO... so I'm sticking to my old rusty trusty slow version...