Sigma 10-20mm Zoom For DSLRs

[SA Bill]

Christmas cash was burning a hole in my pocket so I just ordered one of these for my Sony a100. As much as I'd like to upgrade to an a300 body, I decided to get some wider glass first. Since going to a DSLR, I've really missed having wide the angle capability that I had with my film cameras. The 10-20mm gives me a film equivalent of 15-30mm which should be wide enough for all of my landscape shooting.

The Sigma 10-20mm, along with a Sigma 18-125mm, gives me a pretty workable lens kit that covers from wide angle to medium telephoto with only 2 lenses. Body + grip + both lenses = 4.25 pounds. Not a great weight for backpacking but not bad either, especially considering I'm just doing one night trips at this point. I'm about 90 days away from my next BB backpack trip so we'll see how it goes, weight wise and picture wise.

Sooooo...Anyone here using a Sigma 10-20mm? If not, what wide angle zoom are you using? TJ?? Randell?? Anyone??
  Thanks & HNY!
   Bill

[bdann]

My brother has the Tokina 12-24mm for his Nikon, it is a pretty sweet lens.  I've had my eye on that Sigma for a long time, but haven't been able to justify the cost.  My primary lens is a Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8, I find 16mm to be wide enough for my needs.

[Sotol Vista]

Bill I don't have a lens that wide, but I have rented both the Canon and Sigma 10-20 mm lenses just for taking out to Big Bend and to Glacier National Park. It will be plenty wide for you, there is a little barrel distortion on both lenses.

There is not that much difference at all in Image quality between the 2 lenses. the only thing I did notice was the colors from the canon were slightly better straight out of the camera Vs the Sigma. But once I processed them on the PC I could not tell any difference.

The widest lens i have is the Tamron 18-250mm, Stingrey just got the upgrade to this lens which is an 18-270mm with Image Stabilization. We both really like it for the wide range of focal length. I feel the image quality could be a little better in my version, but Rey says he really likes his.

Sample images from the Canon 10-22 in Big Bend




here are some images from the Sigma 10-20 in Glacier NP



James

[tjavery]

I've never used the Sigma 10-20, but I've heard good things about it. I owned a Tokina 12-24mm once and used it on a 20D. It was a fine lens: well built, and optically on par with my Canon 17-40mm.

I've heard very good things about the new Tokina 11-16mm. It's being reviewed as an extremely sharp lens, perhaps better than the 12-24mm. For the price, the Tokina lenses are a great value.

Since I'm shooting full-frame, the 17-40mm Canon is my primary lens.

Shooting ultra-wide (say, wider than 24mm) to make effective and good photos can be very tricky. At first, I think we all have a tendancy to "swallow up" entire scenes with the widest angle possible, only to be disappointed later when we look at the photo and it lacks a distinct subject or idea.

As you use such a lens over time, you should realize that it takes some selectiveness and thought to using very wide angles effectively. You can do some cool stuff at 17mm (give or take), but you can also capture a huge scene that has too much information to make an interesting photo.

Good luck with the Sigma. Enjoy!

[SA Bill]

My brother has the Tokina 12-24mm for his Nikon, it is a pretty sweet lens.  I've had my eye on that Sigma for a long time, but haven't been able to justify the cost.  My primary lens is a Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8, I find 16mm to be wide enough for my needs.

Yeah, the price of the Sigma was my issue until yesterday. Seems there is some mark down going on and I got a new lens for about what the used ones were selling for. Free shipping too!! 
   Bill

[SA Bill]

Nice pics James! I'm looking forward to having a wider angle of view to work with. I'm hoping the Sigma will do the trick.
   Bill

[SA Bill]

I've heard very good things about the new Tokina 11-16mm. It's being reviewed as an extremely sharp lens, perhaps better than the 12-24mm. For the price, the Tokina lenses are a great value.

Shooting ultra-wide (say, wider than 24mm) to make effective and good photos can be very tricky. At first, I think we all have a tendancy to "swallow up" entire scenes with the widest angle possible, only to be disappointed later when we look at the photo and it lacks a distinct subject or idea.

Good luck with the Sigma. Enjoy!

Hey TJ!
The Tokina sure seems like a nice lens! I'd love to have a constant f/2.8 wide zoom. Alas, the price and the fact that they only make them for Nikon and Canon cameras (as far as I could find) make it a non-option for me.

I hear you about the pitfalls of wide angle photography! I've seen some pictures of clouds at sunset taken with a really wide angle lens and they just show the clouds! Gotta have something besides the pretty clouds to make a photograph instead of a snapshot. I'll try really hard to take some decent pictures with the wide end of the Sigma. As a matter of fact, I had already bookmarked this tutorial for some ideas. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
   Bill

[tjavery]

Hey TJ!
The Tokina sure seems like a nice lens! I'd love to have a constant f/2.8 wide zoom. Alas, the price and the fact that they only make them for Nikon and Canon cameras (as far as I could find) make it a non-option for me.

Doh! Well, hopefully they'll add new mounts to their line-up in the near future. Tokina makes great lenses. I've owned a 24-200mm and a 12-24mm in the past and was pleased by them. The build quality is just superb - they're built like tanks.

[SA Bill]

Yeah...nothin' wrong with the Tokinas!

Back to the Sigma 10-20mm...here's a pic that shows what you can do if you're creative in using a really wide angle lens:



HNY!!
 Bill

[tjavery]

Back to the Sigma 10-20mm...here's a pic that shows what you can do if you're creative in using a really wide angle lens:

Good one! Nice composition.

Here's a shot I took way back when I had the 12-24mm Tokina:



It's just too wide - there's too much stuff in the scene competing for the viewer's attention. It's a good documentative type shot showing what the sunset looked like that evening on the Frio, but it's not a very good photo.

Super-wides are really good for verticals. In fact, one of my favs was taken right about 17mm (full frame):



One of the greatest landscape/outdoor photographers ever, Galen Rowell, advised that 24mm was a good, wide focal length. He rarely shot wider (he had a 20mm lens that he rarely used), and most of his wide-angle work was done at 24mm. (BTW, he mostly shot 35mm film too)

[SA Bill]

I know what you mean about ending up with a "record" of what's before you and not necessarily a "photograph". Many's the time I've judiciously cropped after the fact and even then the result is usually not great.

I love Galen Rowell's work! Split Rock and Cloud is one of my favorite photos of all time. Has it really been 6 years since he passed? He's missed.

When I was young, I aspired to make photographs like those of Ansel Adams; large format B&W. I shot as large as 2-1/4 X 3-1/4 and printed my own prints. I moved over to Kodachrome 35mm and tried to emulate David Muench, Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, John Sexton, et al. I made many Cibachrome prints back then! I still have almost 100 trays of slides, most not worth looking at. Nowadays I just try to take decent photos of the world around me. The switch to digital has opened avenues that I have yet to fully explore. Going wide in the digital realm will (hopefully!) give me a way to be creative when the world around me presents the right opportunity.

The 10-20mm lens will hopefully arrive late next week and I'm thinking about a trip to Enchanted Rock SNA to try it out. I'll post pics if I get anything worth showing.
  HNY!
   Bill