Sigma or Tamron UWA - Canon mount

[mikew09]

OK, I am about 2 3rds saved for my UWA lens and have been looking at the Sigma 10-20 (a very popilar lens) and the new Tamron SP AF 10-24 UWA lens. I have read the dpreview site reveiw on the Tamron against the sigma and the review ranks it favourable but I have also read a couple of forum threads with not such glowing reports mostly around sharpness although barrell distortion is considered much better controlled on the Tamron.

Have spokem to quite a few others who swear by the sigma but as the Tamron is a realtively new release in comparison I have not spoken to anyone in person who has used the Tamron.

Team, any members out there that have physically compared these to lens.

Thanks, Mike

[Gollum]

Check them out for yourself!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Lens=712&Camera=474&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=714&SampleComp=0

If I have the correct lenses (if not just select them from the list) you can see the difference between each lens. While this configuration is with them opened up wide (worst case) you should also check them out at f8.

PS: I would recommend you look at the Canon 10-22, which I have, and love.

Hope this helps.

[Tatts]

If you do go for the Sigma you can get C R Kennedy to price match a grey price. I bought one from them last month for $518 (delivered grey price + GST) delivered in the post the day after i ordered it.

Also, this site has a comparison between a heap of UWA lenses, including the two you are considering
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_10-20_vs_canon_tamron_tokina.htm

[mikew09]

If you do go for the Sigma you can get C R Kennedy to price match a grey price. I bought one from them last month for $518 (delivered grey price + GST) delivered in the post the day after i ordered it.

Also, this site has a comparison between a heap of UWA lenses, including the two you are considering
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_10-20_vs_canon_tamron_tokina.htm

Thanks Tatts, interesting review and shows the more common comments on the Tammy and that is it is a bit softer than the Sigma. One thing I did not know was there are two versions of the Segma 10-20. Thanks - helpful.

[R1titan]

Ive used many UWAs and the one ive settled on for APS-C is the Siggy 8-16, its a lens worth checking out ;)

[mikew09]

Ok, so I have decided it will be the sigma 10-20. Thanks to tatts, this thread made me aware there are now two versions of the Sigma 10-20 the 10-20mm EX DC HSM f/4-5.6 and the new version released last yr Sigm 10-20 EX DC HSM f/3.5. Have read mixed reviews on whether the new build is better than the former 10-20 lens.

Any experience out there on the difference versions would be much appreciated. My reason for purshcaind a UWA is usage mostly for landscapes and the like - I really do not do much portrait or architecture, well at this point.

Any feed back greatly appreciated.

[mikew09]

Ive used many UWAs and the one ive settled on for APS-C is the Siggy 8-16, its a lens worth checking out ;)

Thanks for the suggestion. Was quite interested in this lens when I started reseaching it. Problem is I am looking for specifically at a UWA for landscapes type photography and the 8-16 design does not allow for adaptor rings for filters etc such as GND style filters. Pity as the lens is highly regarded.

[Scotty72]

I can't really comment on the Tamron but, after comparing the siggy 10-20 (f3.5 version) and the canon 10-22, I opted for the siggy and I am very happy with it.

Scotty

[mikew09]

I can't really comment on the Tamron but, after comparing the siggy 10-20 (f3.5 version) and the canon 10-22, I opted for the siggy and I am very happy with it.

Scotty

Thanks Scotty - Read a cople more reviews and they put the new f3.5 a tab in front the ealier version and of course then you have the benefit of the larger aperture which goes without saying. Thanks again for the info mate.

[mikew09]

Just a bit of a bump to see if there is anyone with some comparison on the 10-20mm EX DC HSM f/4-5.6 and the new version released last yr Sigm 10-20 EX DC HSM f/3.5 ????

Feedback appreciated.

Mike

[kiwi]

Yes, they are both 10-20, ex dc hsm but the latter Is faster then the former by 1/2 stop.

No problem thank me later :D

[davearnold]

I would thank Kiwi twice for that post if I could.

Looking at the F3.5 myself ( amongst a heap of other stuff I would like :D )

[William]

I have the older Siggy 10-20 f4/5.6 , I hear the new one is a lot more expensive and I'm wondering why you would need a fast Widey Especially seeing most times it's used on a Tripod anyway At or around the Golden hours :confused013 PS: Anyway who takes Landscapes at 3.5, PPS, Please correct me if I'm wrong or I'm missing something - Bill

[PH005]

I agree with William. Go the f4/5.6. I did, great lens.

[mikew09]

Yes, they are both 10-20, ex dc hsm but the latter Is faster then the former by 1/2 stop.

No problem thank me later :D

Thanks Kiwi :-). But is one better than the other IQ wise etc. I want it mostly for landscape so the wider aperture may not influence my decision a great deal in view of price difference.

[kiwi]

Im not sure, I dont have either lens, but you'd hope so, certainly Sigma's overall quality has improved over the last year or so.

Im sure DPReview etc have done the analysis

[William]

From what I'm led to believe , No difference in IQ , This is coming from another forum on the subject a while ago when the new one was released , Cant remember the forum now tho, But it made me think , They were of the opinion of Why !! have a 3.5 widey , Mind you from experience with mine it would be hard to beat for the price and IQ (The older one ) You are going to get some drop off in IQ on the edges at full wide , Just trying to help Mike :)

[davearnold]

I saw a really good review and compared the 2 sigma's with the canon and another 10-20 range lens., just had a look for the review but could not find it.

From memory, overall the canon was marginally better then the 3.5, which was marginally better then sigma 4/5.6 with the other one coming in 4th.

Why would I go 3.5 over the others .... althought landscape would be main purpose, could see some use for people photos, outside under shade etc, and lower F, would have some benefits.... plus you can always go up in F stops if you want, just gives a few more options.

Cheers

[kiwi]

4-5% with a bullet though - next year it might hit 10%, the year after 20%

[William]

:D I've taken people shots with the widey , It's not a good idea , The distortion at the wrong angle can give a very big distorted bum etc ;)

[William]

An example of people Distortion , Son Joel at Fingal , Check feet and Bum , He's actually quite slim and fit, Look at his right foot !!

[mikew09]

I have the older Siggy 10-20 f4/5.6 , I hear the new one is a lot more expensive and I'm wondering why you would need a fast Widey Especially seeing most times it's used on a Tripod anyway At or around the Golden hours :confused013 PS: Anyway who takes Landscapes at 3.5, PPS, Please correct me if I'm wrong or I'm missing something - Bill

Hi Bill, exactly my question. If IQ such as sharpness, colour contrast and such are equally as good why buy the more expensive model. So I am leaning towards the cheaper model siggy 10-20 unless I start hearing the IQ with the new lens is leagues above the older one.

Thanks for the post matey.

[mikew09]

An example of people Distortion , Son Joel at Fingal , Check feet and Bum , He's actually quite slim and fit, Look at his right foot !!

Hmm, mental note - when I get the siggy, don't take photos of wife at edge of frame - "does my bum look big in this photo" :-)

Thanks for the help William, gratefully accepted.

[mikew09]

An example of people Distortion , Son Joel at Fingal , Check feet and Bum , He's actually quite slim and fit, Look at his right foot !!

Oh, by the way. As far as IQ goes this is a nice shot, apart from some distortion which I think is likey with all UWA's and is something to be mindful of. So just so I am clear Bill, are you saying the distortion is due to the angle the shot was taken and that the distortion would have been minimal if taken on the same horizontal level as the subject?

I still like this shot.

Thanks Mike

[mikew09]

Hi All, only have limited time to put to AP during the day so want to say thanks for all the responses so far around the siggy 10-20.

[William]

The distortion will still happen even if you are on a level plane , I took some family shots when I first got it , The people on either end were'nt happy :D

[mikew09]

The distortion will still happen even if you are on a level plane , I took some family shots when I first got it , The people on either end were'nt happy :D

Hmmmm - something I had not considered. I had assumed that distortion was not that bad.

[William]

It is !! , But I'm talking 10mm , Full wide , Especially on Verticals , The good thing with the Sigma is the Horizon stays dead straight , No curve at all :)

[mikew09]

It is !! , But I'm talking 10mm , Full wide , Especially on Verticals , The good thing with the Sigma is the Horizon stays dead straight , No curve at all :)

I might have a play with one of these before I purchase. I assume the UWA takes a little getting used too.

[William]

:) Sure does , A bit of a beast , You will find it hard to deal with your Shadow , Tripod legs , Your feet , They all get in the way :D, I can hold mine in portrait orientation looking through the view finder and see my feet and the sky in one image :lol: Once you tame it they are great , Exeptional image quality , And great DOF right through from 1mtr to the Horizon :th3:

[mikew09]

:) Sure does , A bit of a beast , You will find it hard to deal with your Shadow , Tripod legs , Your feet , They all get in the way :D, I can hold mine in portrait orientation looking through the view finder and see my feet and the sky in one image :lol: Once you tame it they are great , Exeptional image quality , And great DOF right through from 1mtr to the Horizon :th3:

Thanks William - that has settled me a little - gave me a bit of a scare before.

[William]

Hey Mike , Last comment on the Widey , Get one !! , Have a look at all my Seascapes , All taken with the Sigma 10-20 , I'm not promoting the Siggy at all , Canon 10-22 in awesome as well , Just the siggy is a lot cheaper and does'nt lack IQ , If your down my way give me a PM and you can try mine if you like - Bill ;)

[mikew09]

Hey Mike , Last comment on the Widey , Get one !! , Have a look at all my Seascapes , All taken with the Sigma 10-20 , I'm not promoting the Siggy at all , Canon 10-22 in awesome as well , Just the siggy is a lot cheaper and does'nt lack IQ , If your down my way give me a PM and you can try mine if you like - Bill ;)

Excellent - just had a revisit of some of your shots and remember seeing them before and thinkin how awesome they were. Great work mate, especially some of the portraits seascape witht the UWA - excellent. I think that has sealed it. Save a little more and soon I will start working on my usual rep at Teds to beat him down - he always ducks for cover when he see's me enter the shop :-). Not being one of the wealthy I bargain pretty hard to get the best deal ;-).

Thanks for the info, very helpful.

[Roosta]

mikew09, I am going through the same dilema. I used the Tamron and found it worthy, I liked the MF/AF selector(Slide ring) but I used it at night, so it limited what I was able to shoot.

The Sigma F3.5 hasn't gotten any thing the older lens can offer beside slightly quicker Ap, As William has pointed out, not an issue for the typical land/sea scape type photography.

P.S Will, was the shot of Joel at 10mm ? If so thats quite normal.

By all accounts I've read and to the lenses I've used, The Sigma 10-22 F4 - F5.6 is the winner. In saying that tho, The Canon 10-20 has better IQ, but at atleast nearly twice the price, is it worth it? some say yes, some don't believe so.

[Roosta]

Sorry Mike, Slight bum steer, It was the Tokina 12-24mm I used with slip ring focus changer, It was a great lens in night shooting.

Also as mentioned previously, use the CR Kennedy Price Match Option, At the moment the Sigma 10-20 F4 -5.5 is $479.00 on DWI. Popular lens, so they should have local stock.

[joele]

I have owned both the Tokina 12-24mm f4 and the Sigma 10-20mm (when I still used APS-C), to be honest I preferred the Tokina 12-24/4 it is a great lens :th3: Not that the Sigma was bad I just found the distortion a bit lower with the Tokina and it has amazingly good build quality.. Sharpness was about the same for both, though you have to play the Sigma QC lottery (though that may be better these days, I haven't bought one in a while)..

Though from a reliable ebay trader like say citiwide it is going to cost you around $570 delivered (express post)..

So CRK are still selling direct to the public?

[Roosta]

So CRK are still selling direct to the public?

See link for full details.

http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=315&h=price%20match&

[mikew09]

I have owned both the Tokina 12-24mm f4 and the Sigma 10-20mm (when I still used APS-C), to be honest I preferred the Tokina 12-24/4 it is a great lens :th3: Not that the Sigma was bad I just found the distortion a bit lower with the Tokina and it has amazingly good build quality.. Sharpness was about the same for both, though you have to play the Sigma QC lottery (though that may be better these days, I haven't bought one in a while)..

Though from a reliable ebay trader like say citiwide it is going to cost you around $570 delivered (express post)..

So CRK are still selling direct to the public?

Thanks for the advie Joel.

[mikew09]

See link for full details.

http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index.cfm?pageID=315&h=price%20match&

Thanks again Roosta, I have pretty much always bought from the same rep at Teds and to date with some hard haggling there is not that greater difference between grey etc. I think there is value in building a relationship with a retail store. Lets see how I go with the purchase of the sigma in the short term ;-).

[dulvariprestige]

I haven't noticed anyone mention the tokina 11-16 2.8, never used one, but IQ seems to be in high regards when I've read about it.

The thing the sigma has going for it over the tamron and tokina is focus speed, not an issue for landscapes, but it does come in handy if you do happen to shoot fast moving objects.

Also, the 3.5 has a 82mm filter, which means more $$ for filters.

Last thing, I had the sigma for a year, and just upgraded to the canon 10-22mm and love it, IQ is better, but not twice as good, as it's nearly twice the price of the sigma.

[Roosta]

Thanks again Roosta, I have pretty much always bought from the same rep at Teds and to date with some hard haggling there is not that greater difference between grey etc. I think there is value in building a relationship with a retail store. Lets see how I go with the purchase of the sigma in the short term ;-).

Thats what I ment Mike, the local store gets the sale and CR Kennedy look after their local supplier to be compedative with the Grey Market, Not saying to buy from the Grey Market. You win and Ted wins.

[Wayno]

Excellent and informative forum.

My questions were answered too. I'll be investing in the Sigma.

Cheers,
:th3:

[mikew09]

Excellent and informative forum.

My questions were answered too. I'll be investing in the Sigma.

Cheers,
:th3:

Yep - Siggy for me I think.

[carrg1954]

tatts thanks for the link