Sigma 10-20mm

[Cozza123]

Looking into getting a wide angle lens and the Sigma 10-20mm seems to be the one I can afford "$357" that is decent.
Anyone heard anything bad on them? From the youtube videos they seem fantastic.

[Derek-C]

I have a Sigma 10-20 Cozza and realy enjoy using it.

Great lens .

Derek

[arthurking83]

The version to go for is the f/4-5.6 incarnation.

It's a well regarded lens by those of us who have one.
I've had mine for 7 years now, and it's been my 90% go too lens, as I've primarily concentrated on landscape images.
Mine's been knocked about in those 7 years, and I'm sure there is now a decentering issue I need to sort out, so one day, I'll get it to a service department for fixing.
And even tho I've now moved to the larger framed 35mm format, I still will never let go of this lens, as it's been such a good lens for my purposes.

$357 sounds rather cheap unless you're referring to a second hand price. I know they're no longer an expensive lens(I got mine for $600 all those years back .. when our dollar was worth a few grains of dirt :p) .. if second hand, just watch for decentering in lens elements(fuzzier images on one side compared to the other).
If new ... don't hesitate!

A lot of folks will tell 'ya that a polarizer filter is hard to use on such a wide angle lens, but don't let that stop you. They still have their usefulness even at the widest focal length.
Just don't ..... UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!! .... get a UV filter for it.
The lens may graunch and groan under the weight of the UV filter on the front threads, and collapse into a heap of silica and fluorite dust particles that will float off into outerspace, where they will settle on some alien's lens, who will then get much better landscape images than you ever dreamed of :p

Seriously tho, UV/protective filters do some awesome damage to the details at the edges of a scene.

Approximately f/8 - f/11(with the f/4-5.6 version of this lens) will give you fairly impressive image detail across 97% of an APS-C frame.

[ricktas]

The 10-20 is a great wide angle for the price. Remember that it made to suit 'crop sensor' cameras. So if you think that you will be upgrading to a full frame sensor body in the future, the sigma will not work (on some brands), or work in a 'cropped mode' in others. If full frame is something you are heading towards as well, consider the Sigma 12-24. One point of difference though, the 10-20 can take most filter systems, the 12-24 has a bulbous front element and using filters becomes an expensive add-on

[Kenny A]

Cozza, I've owned one now for just over a year. It is a fantastic lens. It's great value for money. I'm sure that u won't regret buying one.
I also looked at Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, but I keep going back to the sigma.

[Mark L]

I also looked at Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, but I keep going back to the sigma.
Is there any particular reason for that Kenny?
Am currently comparing the Sigma, Tokina 12-24 and Canon 10-22 with a view to buying soon.

[Rattus79]

I got the 10-20 and also love it.

There is always an arguement between me and the wife as to who gets to use it on sunrise shoots and who has to deal with the tamron 18-50 2.8

Seriously though, it's a great lens and for the $$ you can't ask for more.

It does feel a little light and plasticky to me these days, as I've usually got the 70-200 or the sigma 50 1.4 on my body and they are known for having the outer coating coming away, but that does not effect optical performance.

If you do decide to get filters for it, I reccommend not getting the Cokin P series. You will find that it can vignette and/or encroach on the frame.
I'm a pentax user and have a 1.5x crop factor, I'm not sure that it will or not on the canon 1.6x crop bodies.
Either way, 14 mm seems to be the sweet spot for wideness and sharpness.

Some people will tell you they're a soft lens. Don't listen to them. They're idiots paying $1k plus for the canon 10-22 which isn't $500 better value.

[Speedway]

I've had mine for over 6 years and it still gets a lot of work. You wont be disappointed.
Cheers
Keith.

[stevo01]

I just bought the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 as well, hoping to get out this weekend and shoot with it, from what I have heard a good lens at a fantastic price!

[Mark L]

They're idiots paying $1k plus for the canon 10-22 which isn't $500 better value.
FWIW it can be got a lot cheaper than that these days. Anyway.

[Cozza123]

Thank you for all of your replies,Looks like I will be buying on soon

Also I was looking into buying a nifty 50 but Instead I bought an adapter for my 50mm 1.8 Pentacon lens,It works a treat,Great for Portraits

http://i.imgur.com/B6rdQQy.jpg

A sample Cat Portrait I shot with flash
http://i.imgur.com/azhqrs7.jpg

[enduro]

I have one with a Canon mount that I will put up for sale soon as I have moved to full frame and it just won't work with the 5D MKIII.

It's a bloody good lens in my opinion. I only bought it for a week stint hiking through gorges a few years back and couldn't bear to sell it as it did so much I hadn't explored before.

Sure, if you are looking at moving to full frame in the next few years, then don't get one, but if FF is on the horizon, then get one now and you will very much likely sell it for 20% less than you bought it for and have all that fun!

I've even shot fungus/mushrooms with focus stacking (to get the subject and whole BG in detail), occasional family "weird portraits" which we love (we have them on shelves and everyone loves them!) and impossible landscapes with mine.

The Canon 17-40 (which I have) is better at twice the price.

[coolhand78]

How do u find it in low light situations? Is the f4 inhibiting at all?

[enduro]

How do u find it in low light situations? Is the f4 inhibiting at all?

Hand holding a wide angle lens in low light isn't an issue, even with f/4. I recall shooting hand held at 1/25 and getting excellent results many situations, including the hiking trip I mentioned earlier. And that was with a 40D in 2008.

At f/4 one might be a little limited with astro photography and very low light situations requiring exposures of many seconds or more, having said that bumping up the ISO should assist greatly with modern DSLR's.

If not f/4 one could move up to a f/2.8 at significantly greater expense.