SIGMA 10-20mm CLUB

irishwhite · 03-28-2011, 07:46 AM

I got the 3.5 version as I just wanted to have the newest version I could find. Paid about $650 for it, used. Haven't regretted it since, even though i don't use it nearly as often as I'd like. Part of that is it's just so damn cold still.

I'll tell you what though, this lens is a blast to use along with the K-x's movie mode. set it up on a tripod ziptied to my passenger seat, hit the shutter release and had some fun driving in the snow. Looked kinda like one of the views you'd get from the cockpit of a rally racing car.

edit: link to the video

You Tube

Last edited by irishwhite; 03-28-2011 at 07:57 AM.

Sten · 03-28-2011, 08:26 AM

The central railway station of Stockholm, Sweden

Flower sales in central Stockholm, Sweden

UpNorth · 03-28-2011, 10:08 AM

I'm thinking of getting a CPL for my lens. Have others found it necessary to get the "slim design" version, or does a "regular" version CPL work with no vignetting?

Thanks,

Tim

Jewelltrail · 03-28-2011, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by kengoh

I just got this lens recently. I find the focussing inconsistence, sometimes sharp sometimes don't.

Maybe I got a bad copy, timne to send for calibration.

This is one of the pics when it's focussed.

Nice shot there. You are correct: many of us in the Club here have had focus errors. At several points in the thread, we discuss this--best way to eliminate the problem is to use the Hyperfocal point-it assures sharp pics. Back a ways, I put up 2 posts, with the formula and examples if you want to look into it.

Bottom line, because of the immense perspective, it is easy for the AF to miss. I find it much easier to simply hyperfocal focus. Good luck.
JT

Jewelltrail · 03-28-2011, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by UpNorth

I'm thinking of getting a CPL for my lens. Have others found it necessary to get the "slim design" version, or does a "regular" version CPL work with no vignetting?

Thanks,

Tim

Hi Tim:

I have been doing fine (no vignetting beyond the normal) with a "regular" version polarizer. I use a F-Pro, B & W--it is a linear polarizer though--made it much more affordable--others here use an LP too, many use CPL. Any well made CPL ought to do the trick for you.

Jewelltrail · 03-28-2011, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Sten: The central railway station of Stockholm, Sweden
Flower sales in central Stockholm, Sweden

Nice Sten--it is great to get a look into Sweden--thank you--looking forward to more.

Quote:

Iriswhite: irishwhite I got the 3.5 version as I just wanted to have the newest version I could find. Paid about $650 for it, used. Haven't regretted it since,...

Some of us have focus errors with the older, non HSM version. Naturally I'm wondering--how is the HSM version with focus accuracy? Thanks.

JT

UpNorth · 03-28-2011, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Hi Tim:

I have been doing fine (no vignetting beyond the normal) with a "regular" version polarizer. I use a F-Pro, B & W--it is a linear polarizer though--made it much more affordable--others hewre use an LP too, many use CPL. Any well made CPL ought to do the trick for you.

Thanks Jt. So a linear works just fine?
I'm all for saving a few bucks - I just remember seeing all the Surgeon General disclaimers on retail sites saying that if you use a linear with an SLR your pictures will fall out of the camera, and your lens may fall off.

If that's not the case, maybe I'll just go with the linear.

Tim

irishwhite · 03-28-2011, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Some of us have focus errors with the older, non HSM version. Naturally I'm wondering--how is the HSM version with focus accuracy? Thanks.

I personally haven't noticed any real issues, but I'll be honest in saying that I've not really pixel peeped the photos I've taken with the lens. I did use it for a job where I needed to shoot a furnished interior for a house that was on the market and although I'm sure I stayed pretty safe with f/8 and used a tripod, I was extremely pleased with the results. if you'd like to look through the photos to see for yourself, they can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottspeese/sets/72157625341515368/with/5159115076/

my FA 100mm f/2.8 macro on the other hand....I'm really displeased with it's focusing abilities... :-(

Jeff Bennett · 03-28-2011, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Tamia

Jeff, I agree with Brian (calicojack). Be careful mounting filters, though. When I first got my Sig and mounted a UV, a Tiffen, I thought I saw every so slight contact with the front element, so I backed off and checked this forum, discovering others had noticed contact, too. I wanted the protection of the UV so wrapped a heavy duty sewing thread twice around the UV filter's thread "valleys" as close to the UV glass as possible. This provides a stop so that I don't tighten the UV down on the lens element by accident.

Is there a brand that won't touch? I hate rigging stuff if I know I might be removing or changing filters for a given situation?

Jeff Bennett · 03-28-2011, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by irishwhite

I did use it for a job where I needed to shoot a furnished interior for a house that was on the market :-(

That is exactly what I want to shoot with the lens. At least that's my justification since I sell real estate. lol. That link seems to be dead. I tried to find the pics on your flicker profile but couldn't find them.

calicojack · 03-28-2011, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by irishwhite

<snip> my FA 100mm f/2.8 macro on the other hand....I'm really displeased with it's focusing abilities... :-(

May I ask why? What is displeasing you about it?

irishwhite · 03-28-2011, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Bennett

That is exactly what I want to shoot with the lens. At least that's my justification since I sell real estate. lol. That link seems to be dead. I tried to find the pics on your flicker profile but couldn't find them.

Sorry, I'm not sure where I got the link the first time...this should work:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottspeese/sets/72157625341515368/

Originally posted by calicojack

May I ask why? What is displeasing you about it?

I just can't seem to lock onto focus at all with it when using autofocus. Just seems soft even stopped down at f/5.6. I have been happy with it when manually focusing at 1:1 magnification though.

Jewelltrail · 03-28-2011, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by UpNorth

Thanks Jt. So a linear works just fine?
I'm all for saving a few bucks - I just remember seeing all the Surgeon General disclaimers on retail sites saying that if you use a linear with an SLR your pictures will fall out of the camera, and your lens may fall off.

If that's not the case, maybe I'll just go with the linear.

Tim

Tim--

Yeah, the linear works great for me. I think the only danger using a linear is with Auto focus, on some DSLRs. From what I've read, Pentax DSLRs, because of the auofocus design of the bodies, are much less likely to be negatively affected by a LP. To be sure, I always wait for the green hexagon confirmation in the viewfinder. However, when I know the shot is a good one, I take the time to use the hyperfocal distance, which guarantees a good shot--everytime.

If you buy a nice, expensive LP ($65 to $100 range) you can then use it with all other lenses via step up rings. Bimjo suggested this some posts back, and I jumped on it--it makes alot of sense--step up rings are cheap.

Jewelltrail · 03-28-2011, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by irishwhite

Sorry, I'm not sure where I got the link the first time...this should work:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottspeese/sets/72157625341515368/

I just can't seem to lock onto focus at all with it when using autofocus. Just seems soft even stopped down at f/5.6. I have been happy with it when manually focusing at 1:1 magnification though.

IWhite: I tried your flicker link, but get a "Privacy" error.

Send the Da back for examination. That lens is known for good AF.

irishwhite · 03-28-2011, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

IWhite: I tried your flicker link, but get a "Privacy" error.

Send the Da back for examination. That lens is known for good AF.

Try again when you get a chance....just batch edited the photos and changed the privacy to "anyone" so hopefully it works.

03-28-2011, 10:56 AM	#1250
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180 Original Poster	Originally posted by UpNorth I'm thinking of getting a CPL for my lens. Have others found it necessary to get the "slim design" version, or does a "regular" version CPL work with no vignetting? Thanks, Tim Hi Tim: I have been doing fine (no vignetting beyond the normal) with a "regular" version polarizer. I use a F-Pro, B & W--it is a linear polarizer though--made it much more affordable--others here use an LP too, many use CPL. Any well made CPL ought to do the trick for you. Last edited by Jewelltrail; 03-28-2011 at 10:47 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SIGMA 8-16mm CLUB	ManhattanProject	Lens Clubs	867	08-30-2023 07:08 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax AF-540FGZ Flash, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6, Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3	davebest	Sold Items	12	06-25-2009 02:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lens Blowout; 50mm 1.4, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 400mm, etc.	nufenstein	Sold Items	13	03-30-2009 12:00 PM

03-28-2011, 08:26 AM	#1247
Sten Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 103	The central railway station of Stockholm, Sweden Flower sales in central Stockholm, Sweden

03-28-2011, 10:08 AM	#1248
UpNorth Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Minnesota, U.S.A. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 714	I'm thinking of getting a CPL for my lens. Have others found it necessary to get the "slim design" version, or does a "regular" version CPL work with no vignetting? Thanks, Tim

03-28-2011, 10:53 AM	#1249
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180 Original Poster	Originally posted by kengoh I just got this lens recently. I find the focussing inconsistence, sometimes sharp sometimes don't. Maybe I got a bad copy, timne to send for calibration. This is one of the pics when it's focussed. Nice shot there. You are correct: many of us in the Club here have had focus errors. At several points in the thread, we discuss this--best way to eliminate the problem is to use the Hyperfocal point-it assures sharp pics. Back a ways, I put up 2 posts, with the formula and examples if you want to look into it. Bottom line, because of the immense perspective, it is easy for the AF to miss. I find it much easier to simply hyperfocal focus. Good luck. JT

03-28-2011, 11:00 AM	#1251
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180 Original Poster	Quote: Sten: The central railway station of Stockholm, Sweden Flower sales in central Stockholm, Sweden Nice Sten--it is great to get a look into Sweden--thank you--looking forward to more. Quote: Iriswhite: irishwhite I got the 3.5 version as I just wanted to have the newest version I could find. Paid about $650 for it, used. Haven't regretted it since,... Some of us have focus errors with the older, non HSM version. Naturally I'm wondering--how is the HSM version with focus accuracy? Thanks. JT

03-28-2011, 11:44 AM	#1252
UpNorth Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Minnesota, U.S.A. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 714	Originally posted by Jewelltrail Hi Tim: I have been doing fine (no vignetting beyond the normal) with a "regular" version polarizer. I use a F-Pro, B & W--it is a linear polarizer though--made it much more affordable--others hewre use an LP too, many use CPL. Any well made CPL ought to do the trick for you. Thanks Jt. So a linear works just fine? I'm all for saving a few bucks - I just remember seeing all the Surgeon General disclaimers on retail sites saying that if you use a linear with an SLR your pictures will fall out of the camera, and your lens may fall off. If that's not the case, maybe I'll just go with the linear. Tim

03-28-2011, 12:12 PM	#1253
irishwhite Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: philadelphia Photos: Gallery Posts: 349	Originally posted by Jewelltrail Some of us have focus errors with the older, non HSM version. Naturally I'm wondering--how is the HSM version with focus accuracy? Thanks. I personally haven't noticed any real issues, but I'll be honest in saying that I've not really pixel peeped the photos I've taken with the lens. I did use it for a job where I needed to shoot a furnished interior for a house that was on the market and although I'm sure I stayed pretty safe with f/8 and used a tripod, I was extremely pleased with the results. if you'd like to look through the photos to see for yourself, they can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottspeese/sets/72157625341515368/with/5159115076/ my FA 100mm f/2.8 macro on the other hand....I'm really displeased with it's focusing abilities... :-(

03-28-2011, 12:15 PM	#1254
Jeff Bennett Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Memphis Posts: 107	Originally posted by Tamia Jeff, I agree with Brian (calicojack). Be careful mounting filters, though. When I first got my Sig and mounted a UV, a Tiffen, I thought I saw every so slight contact with the front element, so I backed off and checked this forum, discovering others had noticed contact, too. I wanted the protection of the UV so wrapped a heavy duty sewing thread twice around the UV filter's thread "valleys" as close to the UV glass as possible. This provides a stop so that I don't tighten the UV down on the lens element by accident. Is there a brand that won't touch? I hate rigging stuff if I know I might be removing or changing filters for a given situation?

03-28-2011, 02:20 PM	#1255
Jeff Bennett Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Memphis Posts: 107	Originally posted by irishwhite I did use it for a job where I needed to shoot a furnished interior for a house that was on the market :-( That is exactly what I want to shoot with the lens. At least that's my justification since I sell real estate. lol. That link seems to be dead. I tried to find the pics on your flicker profile but couldn't find them.

03-28-2011, 05:33 PM	#1256
calicojack Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Long Island, N.Y. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,124	Originally posted by irishwhite <snip> my FA 100mm f/2.8 macro on the other hand....I'm really displeased with it's focusing abilities... :-( May I ask why? What is displeasing you about it?

03-28-2011, 08:41 PM	#1257
irishwhite Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: philadelphia Photos: Gallery Posts: 349	Originally posted by Jeff Bennett That is exactly what I want to shoot with the lens. At least that's my justification since I sell real estate. lol. That link seems to be dead. I tried to find the pics on your flicker profile but couldn't find them. Sorry, I'm not sure where I got the link the first time...this should work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottspeese/sets/72157625341515368/ Originally posted by calicojack May I ask why? What is displeasing you about it? I just can't seem to lock onto focus at all with it when using autofocus. Just seems soft even stopped down at f/5.6. I have been happy with it when manually focusing at 1:1 magnification though.

03-28-2011, 10:44 PM	#1258
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180 Original Poster	Originally posted by UpNorth Thanks Jt. So a linear works just fine? I'm all for saving a few bucks - I just remember seeing all the Surgeon General disclaimers on retail sites saying that if you use a linear with an SLR your pictures will fall out of the camera, and your lens may fall off. If that's not the case, maybe I'll just go with the linear. Tim Tim-- Yeah, the linear works great for me. I think the only danger using a linear is with Auto focus, on some DSLRs. From what I've read, Pentax DSLRs, because of the auofocus design of the bodies, are much less likely to be negatively affected by a LP. To be sure, I always wait for the green hexagon confirmation in the viewfinder. However, when I know the shot is a good one, I take the time to use the hyperfocal distance, which guarantees a good shot--everytime. If you buy a nice, expensive LP ($65 to $100 range) you can then use it with all other lenses via step up rings. Bimjo suggested this some posts back, and I jumped on it--it makes alot of sense--step up rings are cheap.

03-28-2011, 10:45 PM	#1259
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180 Original Poster	Originally posted by irishwhite Sorry, I'm not sure where I got the link the first time...this should work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottspeese/sets/72157625341515368/ I just can't seem to lock onto focus at all with it when using autofocus. Just seems soft even stopped down at f/5.6. I have been happy with it when manually focusing at 1:1 magnification though. IWhite: I tried your flicker link, but get a "Privacy" error. Send the Da back for examination. That lens is known for good AF.

03-28-2011, 10:56 PM	#1260
irishwhite Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: philadelphia Photos: Gallery Posts: 349	Originally posted by Jewelltrail IWhite: I tried your flicker link, but get a "Privacy" error. Send the Da back for examination. That lens is known for good AF. Try again when you get a chance....just batch edited the photos and changed the privacy to "anyone" so hopefully it works.