Sigma 10-20 sharpness?

D

Doog

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,812
Name
Dougie
Edit My Images
Yes
Until recently I'd heard nothing but good things about the Sigma 10-20 lens. Then out of the blue I here they can be a bit hit and miss on sharpness. I was going to purchase one this week but I'm in two minds now. My question to the forum is would I necessarily notice the difference or is it only in stringent tests that it becomes apparent. As I said, I'm in two minds now but I need a wide angle lens to complement what I have purchased so far and don't want to be disappointed.
 
Doog said:
Until recently I'd heard nothing but good things about the Sigma 10-20 lens. Then out of the blue I here they can be a bit hit and miss on sharpness. I was going to purchase one this week but I'm in two minds now. My question to the forum is would I necessarily notice the difference or is it only in stringent tests that it becomes apparent. As I said, I'm in two minds now but I need a wide angle lens to complement what I have purchased so far and don't want to be disappointed.
Click to expand...

I always thought it to be an OK lens, till I considered purchasing one, and looked at all the reviews I could find, but every single chart or graph of it it compares very poorly to my standard lenses.
 
I have one, the f3.5 and its sharp - sharper then a Canon 10-22.

But, that said I've seen a not so sharp older one and at full size yes you could tell it was soft, but resized and printed on A4 it wasn't obvious unless you were looking for it. Its generally the corners that soften up a bit.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
I always thought it to be an OK lens, till I considered purchasing one, and looked at all the reviews I could find, but every single chart or graph of it it compares very poorly to my standard lenses.
Click to expand...

Reading reviews tell me that my girlfriends car is rubbish but she likes it. I would advise the OP to go and try one out, then review the shots and see if he is happy with them.
 
It's hit and miss in regards to reviews. I've read lots of horror stories regarding sigma focusing issues, but to counter that, many tales of straight out of the box goodness.

Worst case scenario, send it back to sigma for calibration.
 
I owned the older Nikon mount 10-20mm Sigma. It was my favourite lens. Stopped down and in decent light it was very sharp, but most lenses are in those conditions. It is excellent value for money.

It doesn't compare though to my Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 - that's sharp wide open, contrasty & punchy. But that cost 4 times as much, and to be fair it is better than most prime lenses in that range!

If I only had a DX camera, the Sigma 10-20 mm would be first lens.
 
cw318is said:
I have one, the f3.5 and its sharp - sharper then a Canon 10-22.

But, that said I've seen a not so sharp older one and at full size yes you could tell it was soft, but resized and printed on A4 it wasn't obvious unless you were looking for it. Its generally the corners that soften up a bit.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the sigma is sharper than the canon 10-22. The canon 10-22 is one of the best lenses canon make. I tried a Sigma 10-20 before I bought my UWA and although it was a very good copy, I found it soft in the corners compared to the canon so I bought the canon which is in sharp whatever settings/focal length used.

It's still a brilliant lens though, and for the money it can't be beaten.
 
Last edited:
Hi Doog

I had the Sigma 10-20 and used it a lot on a Canon 40D.

I was initially delighted with the images from this combination until I tested it up against a couple of sharp primes. The images from the 10-20 did not get any worse but my expectations changed and the 10-20 just had to go. What, I think. I'm getting to is it depends on what you expect, to some extent.

Get a good copy of this or the Canon equivalent and you cannot go far wrong.
 
I'm in the same boat myself and want to order a lens asap I'll be going used though, I've read that the tokina is much sharper and similar money, but it's 12mm not 10 so not sure how much difference that will make ?
 
My Sigma 10-20 was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned.

Apparently the older version, which is what I had, is meant to be sharper than the new one.
 
I made an enlargement to A2 from this lens on my s5 pro. If you looked closely you could see some minor softness at the edges, but I do mean closely. at any sensible viewing distance the enlargements are superb.

I don't seriously think any UWA lens is going to be pin sharp at the edges with this kind of magnification(but away from the extreme edges it's pin sharp all over) . At A4 it is completely un noticeable, so ask yourself how often you are going to print bigger than A4?

stop worrying and get one!!!!
 
Last edited:
Hi Doug

I've the Sigma 10-20mm and am very pleased with it.

If you look at my Flickr account below, these were taken with it

Hope this helps :thumbs:
 
I think you've put my mind at rest. At this moment in time I can't see myself printing at A2 and if I do I might think about it again then. I just hope I can a reasonably good copy. I have thought about the 3.5 version but don't think the extra stop or whatever would be worth the extra cash. However I might be persuaded if I thought the overall IQ was worth the extra money.
 
Doog, I've had this lens for nearly 4 years now. It is my most used lens, and I went through a few lenses since then. What you have to know about a UWA is that you will very rarely use it wide open. The case with UWA lenses is that you'll need everything in focus because (let me try to explain this as best as I can) when you shoot wide open and get the foreground in focus but the background oof, the background isn't blurry enough to add anything to the composition. It is not even blurry, it is just a bit soft, with the point of focus sharp. The reason for this is the extreme wide angle of this lens and the fairly small aperture for this focal length. So IMHO, these images with the 'soft' background would work better if everything was in sharp focus. This is more prevalent when you shoot landscape, where you'll need your foreground interest in focus along with the horizon pin sharp.
When I have this lens on my camera, I nearly always use it between f/10 and f/16, depending on how close my foreground is. At these apertures you can never go wrong with the lens, it is pin sharp.
But then again this is my style of shooting, and I mainly shoot landscapes with this lens.
 
stylgeo said:
Doog, I've had this lens for nearly 4 years now. It is my most used lens, and I went through a few lenses since then. What you have to know about a UWA is that you will very rarely use it wide open. The case with UWA lenses is that you'll need everything in focus because (let me try to explain this as best as I can) when you shoot wide open and get the foreground in focus but the background oof, the background isn't blurry enough to add anything to the composition. It is not even blurry, it is just a bit soft, with the point of focus sharp. The reason for this is the extreme wide angle of this lens and the fairly small aperture for this focal length. So IMHO, these images with the 'soft' background would work better if everything was in sharp focus. This is more prevalent when you shoot landscape, where you'll need your foreground interest in focus along with the horizon pin sharp.
When I have this lens on my camera, I nearly always use it between f/10 and f/16, depending on how close my foreground is. At these apertures you can never go wrong with the lens, it is pin sharp.
But then again this is my style of shooting, and I mainly shoot landscapes with this lens.
Click to expand...

I'm mainly expecting to use it for landscapes too so thanks for that.:thumbs:
 
I think for the price of the lens, £350, you'd be hard pushed to find something as good. Yes there are good copys and bad copys, Sigmas QC doesn't seem to be the best, but overall I'm really happy with mine. How does it compair to my Canon L series lenses.....well it doesn't really, but then again it was only 1/4 or 1/3 of the price! I bought my 10-20 from a local store and said I would be taking it back if it wasn't any good and the guy didn't have a problem with that.

Cheers

Simon
 
I've seen some reports of quality control issues with this lens, so I bought a second hand one off ebay from somebody I trusted, i.e. address available, could look /try before purchase (Ok, it was near enough), and honest communication. I paid nearly new price, but it came with two good filters and I knew the previous user had produced really good shots, ergo, no IQ problems. Have since tried it and am very pleased. Hope this is helpful.
 
I'd actually be surprised, that given all the reviews on this lens, if Sigma hadn't made an effort to sort out the problems of quality control. :shrug:
 
This issue with Sigma's QC of this lens has gone too far imho. Sigma announced the affected batch nearly 5 years ago, and it was just a certain batch of bad QC. Not all lenses of that batch were affected, but some where off centred and Sigma recalibrated all affected lenses that were sent back. The affected batch was lenses with SN smaller than 1020000. I think that it was specifically the batch between 1010000 - 1020000. I bought mine new from Jessops 4 years ago and its SN is 1042200, so if the lens is 5 years or newer then it is fine! The situation with this lens is that because it had a bad batch, people still talk about it and its reputation is ruined. People will tend to talk more about a bad quality of a product or a company rather than the good ones. So, if the lens you are buying is outside the affected SN then you'll be fine!
 
I'm not totally convinced that the quality issue is as big as is made out, it could just as easily be the user not using the camera/lens properly.....
 
I had a 10-20 which I rated very highly. It was definitely soft on the left hand side though. Centre was tack sharp, right was ok, corners were soft.
 
stylgeo said:
This issue with Sigma's QC of this lens has gone too far imho. Sigma announced the affected batch nearly 5 years ago, and it was just a certain batch of bad QC. Not all lenses of that batch were affected, but some where off centred and Sigma recalibrated all affected lenses that were sent back. The affected batch was lenses with SN smaller than 1020000. I think that it was specifically the batch between 1010000 - 1020000. I bought mine new from Jessops 4 years ago and its SN is 1042200, so if the lens is 5 years or newer then it is fine! The situation with this lens is that because it had a bad batch, people still talk about it and its reputation is ruined. People will tend to talk more about a bad quality of a product or a company rather than the good ones. So, if the lens you are buying is outside the affected SN then you'll be fine!
Click to expand...

That is interesting and very much along with my thinking.:)

Dave Pickett said:
I'm not totally convinced that the quality issue is as big as is made out, it could just as easily be the user not using the camera/lens properly.....
Click to expand...

As above, I can't see Sigma continue to sell a poor lens and ruin their reputation. :nono:
 
Bear in mind that there are two Sigma 10-20s - the constant F3.5 and the F4-5.6.

I have the latter and I have no problems with IQ.
 
My 10-20 is great when theres lots of natural light around, very sharp. I havent taken many low light pictures with it so cant compare. Im happy with its performance overall though.
 
I've had two of these and both are very sharp. But has seen to be hit and miss obviously they seemed to have some quality control issues.
 
I own one (brought 2nd hand) and it's incredibly sharp, I love the lens and generally it's my walk about lens as I mainly shoot landscape. It's definitely one of my favourite.
 
Doog did you end up buying one? im looking at the same group of lenses now and seem to get mixed reviews
 
I've had a 10-20 for ages, in fact other than my 50mm, I've had it longer than any other lens and it's now been on 4 bodies (350, 40, 50 & 7D).

Here's a link to a shot taken from the Qdeck in Surfers Paradise, Australia. It's a bit soft at the corners but it was taken at 11mm. And another at 10mm.

It's not the sharpest lens out there, but for the money it's very good, in my opinion, and although I don't take it everywhere, I wouldn't want to be without it.

Steve
 
I had a Sigma 10-20 and it was excellent. Build quality was wonderful and the feel of the zoom/focus rings was just like that of my Canon 17-40, an L series lens. On a cropped 12 megapixel body the lens was of comparable sharpness to my 17-40 on a full frame DSLR - and that's saying something. The focus was easily as fast and accurate as the 17-40 as well.

The only slightly negative thing is the vignetting - at f/4 on the wide end it was really bad.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, I had the f/4-5.6 version. I've no experience of the new f/3.5 version.
 
Last edited:
this is one I had enlarged to A2 taken at 10mm

DSCF7364.jpg


there is slight softness at the corners, but only if you REALLY went looking for it......
 
Jelster said:
I've had a 10-20 for ages, in fact other than my 50mm, I've had it longer than any other lens and it's now been on 4 bodies (350, 40, 50 & 7D).

Here's a link to a shot taken from the Qdeck in Surfers Paradise, Australia. It's a bit soft at the corners but it was taken at 11mm. And another at 10mm.

It's not the sharpest lens out there, but for the money it's very good, in my opinion, and although I don't take it everywhere, I wouldn't want to be without it.

Steve
Click to expand...

I like that Q/deck pic.:love:

As you can see from this uncropped pic, it is very close focusing too.


Fungii by Doog E, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top