[Zig]

Hope I've done this right and it's in the right place...
Sigma 10-20 on Canon 350D; 10mm at f22.
That church was only 4 feet away....yeahright...
lerv'n'sterff,
Zig

[Zig]

Hahahaha! See wattImean?!
Yep, what a numpty.
The observant among you will notice the church, conspicuous by its marked absence.
Sigma 10-20, 10mm at f16...Selsley, Glos, UK, during the 10 minutes last Saturday it wasn't actually pittling down with rain.
Zig

[Rufus]

Hope that's OK Zig, man. It may have suffered a little at my paws though........ :/

Now, that makes little sense, eh??

[Toad]

I'm quite interested in this lens - or one of the 12-24s available. What is your opinion of the 10-20 now having used it?

[Zig]

Hello there Toad.
As you've probably ascertained from my first thoughts I posted the other day on another thread, my opinion is that it'll give "good" results bearing in mind the following parameters:
If you're sticking at about A4 size or less;
If you're happy with f8/f11;
If you want clearer performance from around 17mm to 20mm than the 18-20mm on the "kit" lens from Canon.
I'm also bearing in mind that there's a nice margin for depth of field too: judicious focussing at f11 rather than "leaning on it" at f22.
I'm actually taking it back and getting the Canon 10-22: I was conscious of being on the cusp of satisfaction as I took in its overall performance; mind you, I'm picky about my lenses.
On that point, over at dpreview, you'll find several more informed responses and test shots; one chap at least is convinced it outperforms the Canon 16-to-whatever f2.8 at shared focal lengths.
As ever, yep, what are our choices, I suppose...
Putting 2 and 2 together, I'm guessing(only) that it outdoes theSigma 12-24; it's a solid-feeling little lens and reacts quickly...I liked its "manual override".
At the end of all, I'm going from my gut response: I was never a Canon user or a digital photographer until 2 weeks ago, and am still in the process of juggling all the variables. I'm trying to unlearn, in a sense, my experience of medium-format prime lenses, so I'm hoping I've not thrown the baby out with the bathwater....!
Best of,
Zig

[shuttertalk]

Let us know your thoughts on the Canon when you do get it...


Beautiful shot by the way! Loads of character!

[Toad]

Thanks Zig - that confirms what my thinking has been given the various opinions I have read. I guess I will look further at the Nikon 12-24 and the Tokina 12-24.

I'm also serious considering the 18-70 Nikon kit lens. It is obviously not as wide as the 12-24, and overlaps my Nikon 24-85 - but I am getting so I would like to carry less lenses rather than more, and it is not too pricy when purchased with the D70s - so maybe I might consider leaving my 24-85 on my F100 and getting the kit lens with the D70s. But maybe not. Ther 12-24 would be no overlap and if I get the Tokina - it is not too much more money.

Decisions, decisions... welcome to Shuttertalk btw.

[Zig]

Thanks Toad and s-t,
Toad, how's about the Tokina17mm ATX Pro?
Shuttertalk: well, I took out the Canon 10-22 yesterday. For me, a world of difference really: with the Canon, I immediately gained confidence as soon as I saw the first results. I feel I can lean and rely on the Canon, whereas the Sigma had been on the cusp of acceptability for me.
With the Sigma, I was having to worry and fret about getting the aperture right at the right length for it to cope well: I found that it fell off very quickly.
The Canon: well, stunning really; head and shoulders above. An absolute ripper at 16mm and f11, holding it together all the way through. Sure, edges flufficize(!) at wide apertures...but, I "rode it pretty hard" by shooting into the sunset, at 10mm and f22 and i could not get the thing to flare, I kid you not.
Chromatic aberration is quite marked though, if you start peeking...I'd rather have this than flare, on balance.
I took the chance to repeat the same shots at the same length as the Sigma: it resolves the pants off it generally.
A word of encouragement to those who are considering this lens: Canon offer a sizeable cashback with this lens(£70 sterling), and I believe the price difference is worth it.
Yes, Canon are shmucks: no cover, I ask you!
The final gleeful note was that I could use a stepup ring to use one of my large polarisers: negated any vignetting save a tad at 10mm, but croppable with minimal loss.
Busy today, but I'll post a shot soonish and you can see for yourselves.
S-T: I dunno if you need to move this to another forum seeing as it's a lensy comment.
Must go to a bass gig!

[shuttertalk]

Hmm good idea - I'll move it to the lenses forum...

[slejhamer]

Thanks for the lens reviews Zig. A bit disappointing on the 10-20, considering how good my 18-50 f/2.8 has been.

You mention the Tokina 17mm - that lens gets great reviews. But for me a zoom is more practical.

[Zig]

Slej: bear in mind mine was a subjective set of thoughts and not an objective review. My sniffiness at the Sigma10 20 might to someone else be totally misplaced; it's conceivable that I had a poor Sigma, or just converted my RAWS wrong! I'm sure that out there already is a proper comparison of the Canon and Sigma being compiled, and that you don't need to be crestfallen just yet!

[Kombisaurus]

Hey thanks for that mini-review Zig.. very interesting reading!

I actually had the Sigma 10-20 on order for a month back in May, but ended up cancelling the order because nobody seemed to know when they would end up being shipped (it was May, then June, then July, then I spent the money on something else!).
I was agonising over the choice of the Sigma 10-20 vs the Canon 10-22... mainly because there wasn't much info available about the Sigma at the time... but it's great to hear the opinion of someone who has actually used both lenses.
That's not to say I've forgotten about the Sigma and will save my pennies for the Canon 10-22, after all there is quite a big price difference (the Canon was almost double the price of the Sigma last time I checked) and I've read several very positive reports about the Sigma. But it is good to know that at least in your case, you got much better glass for the extra money

[Kombisaurus]

Well... I think I'm going to bite the bullet and get the Sigma 10-20.

I know your experiences with it haven't been great Zig, but I suspect (hope) you just had a dud copy. Certainly some of the sample shots I've seen on other websites don't have many of the characteristics you complain about (soft edges, etc) and the reviews more often than not have really good things to say about this lens.
As much as I'd prefer it, I really can't justify the cost of the Canon 10-22mm... and my only other hope is winning 2nd prize in the "Tamron Territory" photo competition which is a Tamrom 11-18mm lens... haha.. A man can dream, can't he???

So yes, I think I've wasted enough time and missed enough wide shots. It might not be a perfect lens, but the best lens in the world is whatever happens to be on the end of my camera when I'm pointing it at that once-in-a-lifetime scene.... and unfortunately I can't see the Canon 10-22 being on the end of my camera in the near future

And despite the apparent shortage of stock for the Sigma 10-20 everywhere in the known universe, I've discovered that a local camera shop here in Perth has 3 in stock at a reasonable price (Plaza cameras).
So I might take my camera in there and see they'll let me try all three of them to pick the sharpest copy.

Cheers
Adrian

[Toad]

Have you considered the Tokina 12-24? It is also getting excellent reviews.

[Zig]

OK Kombi; good for you matey! I really hope you get a peachy one...but, my, you've got some nice glass in your collection to pit it against.
Yes, I've seen and heard several experiences that attest to satisfaction with the Sigma; I do find it odd that here too these lenses are conspicuous by their absence, with nothing in the camera mags either.
The one I had was apparently from the first wave(or trickle) of them, which has subsequently dried up...but yet again it's as though all the voices that were clamouring for one suddenly all went on holiday. I'd count this focal length area as one that would have great demand too.
Am very keen to hear how you get on, hope you keep us posted on your findings and decisions.
How about you Toad? Are you still between the Nikon and Tokina?

[Toad]

I dunno - I am of 2 minds. I have not purchased the D70s so for my film work my current 24-85 is sufficiently wide.

I am now also considering the 18-70 kit lens (27-105 equivalent) which is reputed to be excellent for the D70s. Unforunately it overlaps on the long side with my 24-85 so its a difficult decision. Go for the kit lens and accept the overlap or buy a specialized wide lens... decisions, decisions.

[Kombisaurus]

I've kind of considered the 12-24 Toad, but there is actually a fairly big difference between 10 and 12mm and I want to go as wide as I can. As I've already got an overlap at the "long" end with my 17-85 lens, then I don't need the extra 4mm there.

But you're right, I've read nothing but good things about the Tokina.

Your choice is a tough one too... as the 18-70 kit lens is meant to be a nice piece of glass (certainly compared to the 18-55 Canon kit lens equivalents)... but I guess it depends on what you shoot.
I never did a lot of wide-angle stuff until I got my DSLR (mainly because my old compact digicam didn't really go very wide), but now I'm totally hooked!

Cheers
Adrian

[Kombisaurus]

Oops... I meant to post this with my last post... an image showing how much scene you can effectively squeeze into different focal lengths. I think I've posted this once before somewhere, but anyway... I find it very useful (assuming it is accurate).

[Toad]

Interesting... I assume your example pic is 35mm equivalent?

I tend to be a detail man - zooming in as close as necessary and then moving closer - so not sure what my wide angle needs realy are...

[Kombisaurus]

Hey Toad,

I'm not sure if it matters if the example is 35mm equivalent or not... unless you were interested in re-creating that particular shot of a staircase.
It's more the relationships the focal lengths have to each other that is relevent to me... the fact that 2mm between 10 and 12mm makes a lot more difference than the same 2mm between 22 and 24mm.... and those relationships remain the same regardless of any crop factor.

You could just as easily multiply everything by 10 (or 1.6 or whatever) and use it as a guide for lenses of other focal lengths... Just as 2mm makes twice as much difference between 10 and 12mm as it does between 22 and 24mm...

And Zig... I'm going in to check out the lenses this afternoon.. so fingers crossed!
I've also noticed this lens has been conspicuous in how little has been written about it. I was told the delays have been due to Sigma having difficulty sourcing the raw materials to make it... but it does all seem a little strange. I'd have expected a lot of people to be jumping up and down about this lens... but it just seems... well.. a bit odd!

[Toad]

Point taken.

[Kombisaurus]

I picked up the Sigma 10-20 yesterday

I haven't done exhaustive comparisons with my other lenses yet, but initial tests seem to show the copy I have to be nice and sharp (all things considered). At the tele-end in the 17-20mm range where it overlaps with my Canon 17-85mm IS lens, the Sigma 10-20 is significantly sharper, especially at the edges. It also has MUCH better CA than the 17-85 (which is pretty bad in the corners at the wide end).

Its not perfect by any means, but I'm certainly happier with its overall image quality than I was when I got my 17-85 IS (which is still a good step up from the kit lens as far as image quality).

It might not be a fair test comparing one lens at its "tele" end of the zoom with another at its "wide" end... but its the best I can do. And I must say that whenever I need to take shots in the future where either lens will do... I will be reaching for the Sigma - no question (unless I need to use the IS).

At the 10mm end of the Sigma's range though... whoah.. its quite a different view of the world. I wasn't ready for just how exaggerated the perspective is, especially in the corners. There seems to be quite a skill in simply getting some 10mm shots to look "natural"... as things tend to get stretched out towards the corners as you approach them, and you don't want to put people or strong verticals near the corners unless you are wanting that effect. Of course PS2 has perspective effects to correct a lot of this if you want to, but ideally you shouldn't have to. Apart from this massive perspective effect (which I assume isn't a "fault" of the lens, it is simply a necessity when you're trying to squeeze over 100deg of view onto the sensor without being a fish-eye) there is suprisingly very little distortion and good decent flare control. I should point out though that the corners *are* a bit softer at 10mm than at 17-20mm, especially so at wide apertures... but they were better than I was expecting and certainly well within my acceptable limits.
I think it will take some time to really get the most out of 10-12mm beyond novelty shots, but I've seen enough today to know it will be a very useful little weapon to have in the arsenal. Things start to look normal again around 14-15mm, and by 20mm it is just a lovely sharp regular wide-angle lens.

So here are some shots from today:


1. Obligatory wide-angle novelty shot. My cats will hate me for turning them into big-headed monsters!



2. Indiana Tea House, Cottesloe. This is a 10mm shot where I was trying *not* to eggagerate the perspective effect... yet it is still quite noticable (but quite acceptable IMHO). Also note that there is no vignetting when I use a normal-size (ie not slim-line) polariser! yaay!



3. This 10mm shot was the worst shot of the day with regards to flare... and although the flare is quite obvious, it is much better than the likes of the kit lens. Little patches of flare don't worry me too much, its the large "veil" flare that seems to wash out 1/2 an image that I really hate, and this seems to be pretty good in that regard. Also note that the flare seemed to be the worst when the sun was just on the edge of the image... it was actually better when the sun was in the picture (or obviously when the sun was way out of the image and being blocked by the lens hood).


4. This is a shot at 20mm... which looks lovely and sharp in high-res.. I think it will be a great landscape lens in the 15-20mm range.


5. Canning River - Applecross. Its great for shooting things that are flat horizontal on the ground, as it can cover a large area and makes the camera appear directly above the scene... but I had to be careful not to include my feet in the image!


6. Canning River - Applecross. These are the kinds of scenes I really bought this lens for... where I can use that unique perspective to add drama and effect and depth to the geometry in the scene and really emphasize a particular idea. I think this particular shot is missing something, but it gives me a glimpse at the possibilities I think.


7. Although this shot doesn't really say much about the lens, I took it with the lens last night at a friend's house (1/8th second hand held @10mm) and I thought it was worth posting for a laugh

I hope that can help... I might be able to do some "proper" comparison shots on the weekend and post some 100% crops for the pixel peepers out there... but my gut feeling about the lens is a very good one....
As you say Zig.. perhaps you got one of the early "dud" ones?

[shuttertalk]

Beautiful shots, Adrian! I'm happy that you're happy with your new lens...

Even though #3 has flare in it, I think it works and adds a special touch to the image...

#6 Canning river is awesome too!

[Wedding Shooter]

I love wide angle photography and the Canon 10-22 was high up on my list of must have lenses. I like your shots of the Canning River - it is a lovely place to hang out.

I used to live in Rossmoyne and know the area well.

The Sigma looks fine.

[slejhamer]

Great sample shots Kombi. You are right about the flare in #3 - not too bad compared to what other lenses do.

Love #5 - it is bizarre and disorienting. The tree root looks organic, and the water above really threw me. Fun!