[fs999]

I am thinking of getting the Sigma 10-20 3.5 as my next lens, I am a bit short at the wide end, but the brand new Sigma 35 1.4 looks very exiting, especially for a APS-C sensor.

Why not then the 8-16, if you are a bit short ?

[gryphongryph]

Why not then the 8-16, if you are a bit short ?

As I have understood it has more distortion, and can not take filters

[TER-OR]

8-16 images.
Similar to rectilinear fisheye at 8mm, more of a classic wide-angle at 16mm. Definitely a specialty lens, and that dome front element makes filters likely impossible. I have to say it was very fun to play with.

[mrmeng]

Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM Lens
Quality built, wide, fast and sharp!

[JinDesu]

I had the Sigma 10-20 F4.5-5.6. It was a very good lens, and can be available for pretty cheap. It was relatively sharp, and performed very well for long exposure night shooting.





For the remainder of the range - the Sigma 17-50 is very highly rated. I would actually recommend it over the Sigma 24-70, as the Sigma 24-70 has some very nervous bokeh. Alternatively, you can get the Sigma 50 F1.4, which is a brilliant prime lens that I use all the time.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8336/8095858455_3c5b9d0a94_o.jpg <-Full size shot on my k-x at F2.0.

At the long end, the newest Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM is the best of the Sigma 70-200 lenses, and performs very well in AF and IQ.

[Skipper74]

I had the Sigma 10-20 F4.5-5.6. It was a very good lens, and can be available for pretty cheap. It was relatively sharp, and performed very well for long exposure night shooting.





For the remainder of the range - the Sigma 17-50 is very highly rated. I would actually recommend it over the Sigma 24-70, as the Sigma 24-70 has some very nervous bokeh. Alternatively, you can get the Sigma 50 F1.4, which is a brilliant prime lens that I use all the time.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8336/8095858455_3c5b9d0a94_o.jpg <-Full size shot on my k-x at F2.0.

At the long end, the newest Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM is the best of the Sigma 70-200 lenses, and performs very well in AF and IQ.

Dear JimDesu:

Would you prefer a 70-300mm F2.8 Sigma over the Pentax 50-135mmF2.8?. Yes I know the sigma is longer but is the quality better?. And is the Sigma Weather sealed?

[JinDesu]

Dear JimDesu:

Would you prefer a 70-300mm F2.8 Sigma over the Pentax 50-135mmF2.8?. Yes I know the sigma is longer but is the quality better?. And is the Sigma Weather sealed?

To be honest, I would actually prefer the 50-135 F2.8 - as it is weather sealed and the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is not. In addition, I believe the 50-135 is sharper. It is also quite a bit smaller.

If you don't mind the shorter reach, it's a very good lens.

[Skipper74]

To be honest, I would actually prefer the 50-135 F2.8 - as it is weather sealed and the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is not. In addition, I believe the 50-135 is sharper. It is also quite a bit smaller.

If you don't mind the shorter reach, it's a very good lens.

Thanks for the advice I am seriously thinking on getting that lens and maybe a Sigma 10-20mm and a 17-50mm or a 24-70mm. I have a Pentax 18-135mm kit lens and a really nice 15mm limited. Everyone thinks I am crazy to get rid of the 15mm limited but I would like a little wider I think as I like landscape shots.

[JinDesu]

Well, I do think you are crazy for getting rid of the DA 15 Limited, but that's ok :P

To me, photography is about enjoyment. If you find that the Sigma's give you more enjoyment, then it'll be worth it. If not, you can always go back.

[Skipper74]

I think I will buy the sigma and if I like it better than I will keep it and sell the 15mm but if not I will just sell the sigma. But your correct about the enjoyment thing. But I appreciate the advice on the 17-50mm vs 24-70mm sigma.

[Qwntm]

Siggy 8~16 FLD
Siggy 17~50 FLD
Siggy 70~200 FLD

Definitely Siggy 8-16

Tamron 17-50 2.8

Tamron 70-200 2.8

Those are my choices, a little cheaper, but you can't go wrong either way.

I'd get the 16-50 SDM if it was still $700 and the 50-135 SDM if it was still $800.

[GvilleRick]

I have several Sigma lenses and love them all. I have the 10-20, the 18-50 f2.8, and the 50-500. I currently have a Tamron 70-200 but am waiting for a Sigma 70-200 that I just bought (the HSM II without OS). I also had the sigma 170-500 but sold it when I bought the Bigma.

If I had to choose three I would definitely choose the 70-200 and the 18-50 since I use those focal lengths the most. The choice between the 10-20 and Bigma would be tougher. I probably use the longer lens more but really like the shots I've gotten with the wide angle and have printed out some favorites with that lens that are hanging in my room.

[eaglem]

I have a few Sigma lenses and these would be the 3 I'd highly recommend, Sigma 105mm F2.8 Macro which also doubles as a very sharp Portrait lens..........the sigma 10-20mm UWA for landscapes etc and the the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 which is fairly fast and also gives good sharp images. I also have the Sigma 30mm F1.4 which is great for low light and the 10mm Fisheye for those special shots. But to be honest, it doesn't matter how many lenses you buy there will always be an excuse (see that as reason) to buy another lens.