[whatever7]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Interesting that this lens has very similar zoom range to the new Panasonic 7-14mm f4 m4/3 lens. But as always Sigam make a jumbo size design.

[Jasvox]

Interesting that this lens has very similar zoom range to the new Panasonic 7-14mm f4 m4/3 lens. But as always Sigam make a jumbo size design.

The Oly costs anywhere from $1700-2000...I can live with the size of the Sigma at about a quarter of the price!

Jason

[kenyee]

I didn't buy my f/2.8 ultrawide glass for creative selective focus (and if you did, you're an idiot). I bought it so I could shoot hand-held at midnight, and keep it under ISO400.

I've never shot my Sigma 10-20 wide open at f/4. It's just not sharp enough wide open, even in the center. For night shots, it's always f/8-13 on a tripod and nearly always at 10mm. f/2.8 to f/4 is only one stop...f/3.5 to f/4 is even less :-P

I'm pretty sure I'm a different market than what Sigma is targetting w/ the 10-20 HSM, unless they've dramatically improved the edge sharpness (my main complaint about the 10-20) and it'll partially work on FF systems like the Tokina can at 14mm.

[AndrewG NY]

Interesting that this lens has very similar zoom range to the new Panasonic 7-14mm f4 m4/3 lens. But as always Sigam make a jumbo size design.

Not only is (at least the Oly version of this lens) $1500 but it's not small either. Larger (fatter and maybe an inch longer) and 80% heavier than a Pentax DA12-24/4. Effective 14-28 on 4/3 though vs. effective 18-36 for the DA on APS-C.

[AndrewG NY]

I've never shot my Sigma 10-20 wide open at f/4. It's just not sharp enough wide open, even in the center. For night shots, it's always f/8-13 on a tripod and nearly always at 10mm. f/2.8 to f/4 is only one stop...f/3.5 to f/4 is even less :-P

Of course, the older Sigma is only f/5.6 at 20mm, so that's 1 1/3 stops. Anyway, for some applications (street-shooting, photojournalism...), its not necessarily about optimal sharpness or limiting depth-of-field, it's about getting the shot with reasonable shutter speed to stop motion & camera shake...and a tripod won't necessarily do it. Even a mild performance improvement combined with a faster max aperture will convince many people to drop another $200 on this lens instead of the older 10-20/4-5.6. And do you doubt that this lens will likely outperform the older one at smaller apertures as well (time will tell, but I won't be surprised if it does).

I'm pretty sure I'm a different market than what Sigma is targetting w/ the 10-20 HSM, unless they've dramatically improved the edge sharpness (my main complaint about the 10-20) and it'll partially work on FF systems like the Tokina can at 14mm.

I'm not going to talk about this being dead in the water vs. the Tokina unless it appears in our mount of choice, most likely in Pentax DA* trim. Not a peep about it yet, so it may never happen--which would be a real shame. Furthermore, some might choose the 10-20 range over the more limited 11-16 range anyway...and all this is without even considering price differences which is unknown at this time.

Having choices is good.

[kenyee]

Of course, the older Sigma is only f/5.6 at 20mm, so that's 1 1/3 stops.

FWIW, in the 10-20 Flickr group, most people use the Sigma at 10mm *only*. When you do UW, you usually go as wide as possible. I don't think I've used mine at 20mm...have you?

[Jodokast96]

Not every wide angle lense is used for landscape photography. Those who can get creative... will.

Hell, not even creative. Could have used a nice, fast, wide angle today shooting an indoor convention under some really poor lighting.

[whatever7]

Not only is (at least the Oly version of this lens) $1500 but it's not small either. Larger (fatter and maybe an inch longer) and 80% heavier than a Pentax DA12-24/4. Effective 14-28 on 4/3 though vs. effective 18-36 for the DA on APS-C.

Isn't the 7-14mm f/4 only 300g. Or you are talking about something else. I would like to see Panasonic has the ball to charge 14-24mm f/2.8 G price for this tiny lense. It willl be comedy gold.

I expect the Sigma 10-20mm to have similar price and IQ as the Pentax 12-24mm.

[AndrewG NY]

Isn't the 7-14mm f/4 only 300g. Or you are talking about something else. I would like to see Panasonic has the ball to charge 14-24mm f/2.8 G price for this tiny lense. It willl be comedy gold.

I expect the Sigma 10-20mm to have similar price and IQ as the Pentax 12-24mm.

My bad. Since this earlier posting, I have now seen the lens you are talking about--it is for micro 4/3 with short register distance can be considerably smaller than the Oly "full" 4/3 lens with the same spec...for which apparently Oly does have the cajones to charge Nikkor 14-24 rates....

Many would say the existing 10-20/4-5.6 has similar IQ as the Pentax 12-24/4, though I'm inclined to give the DA a slight edge. Seems likely that the new Sigma would be priced more like the DA.

Anyone else think that Pany/Oly are shooting 4/3 in the foot by having different stabilization schemes (in-body vs. in-lens)?

[AndrewG NY]

FWIW, in the 10-20 Flickr group, most people use the Sigma at 10mm *only*. When you do UW, you usually go as wide as possible. I don't think I've used mine at 20mm...have you?

Yes, absolutely. I have paired my DA12-24 with FA24-90/3.5-4.5 when travelling and used the DA's "long end" as well.

However, I would guess that most people that buy a 10-20 are more likely pairing it with a standard zoom capable of 16-18mm...so when they use it they are more likely to use the short end.

I think we're in agreement that there is a tendency to jump straight from ~16mm 'ultrawide' to max ultra-ultra-wide 10-12mm. 16mm (24mm equiv) has a certain aesthetic that works well for landscapes when you're not trying to exaggerate the wide-angle effect. The wider angles offer some additional challenges if you don't want the foreground to dominate your picture...but when you're pursuing ultra-ultra-wide, you often go as wide as possible.

[troywhite]

I didn't buy my f/2.8 ultrawide glass for creative selective focus (and if you did, you're an idiot). I bought it so I could shoot hand-held at midnight, and keep it under ISO400.

You can shoot with the existing 10-20 variable apeture one easily enough hand held at night as it is.

When I first looked at getting the 10-20 I was concerned about the variable aperture but once you use it you find that it doesn't matter.

Hand holding a lens at 10mm at 1/20 or even 1/10 is not out of the question with in body SR.

[madbrain]

Dum question, but why?
I typically run mine up at f/11, f/13 to get enough of the frame (landscapes) in focus...

And 82mm CPL will be pretty expensive as is the UV filter. We're talking $200 just in filters for good ones...

Do 82mm CPLs cost that much more than 77mm ? I only use cheap ones anyway ...

The "DC" designation still means it's APS-C only. If it were FF, it might be worth it...

The previous version of the Sigma 10-20, which I own, is DC also, not FF.

Seems like you get larger aperture and HSM with this lens. The old version already had HSM with other brands. It's only new for Pentax. I hope the new version is not too much more expensive.

[kenyee]

Do 82mm CPLs cost that much more than 77mm ? I only use cheap ones anyway ...

Yes...$200 vs. $120 for B&W MRC ones.

The Tokina 11-16/2.8 is APS-C, but you can use it at 14-16 on a FF camera w/o vignetting. The current 10-20 vignettes through its range.

FYI, ETA is May and $600 for the new /3.5 model from a post I saw.

[filorp]

Yes...$200 vs. $120 for B&W MRC ones.

NO! 82mm - 40+8(shippment), 77mm 32+8 - eBay.co.uk Shop - Tradingoo: UV: New Hoya 62mm 62 mm Super HMC Pro1 Pro 1 UV 0 Filter
it depends on brand and store... usually difference is proportional

The existing 10-20 is a very good lens, it remains to be seen if the constant aperture is at the expense of IQ.