sigma 10-20mm any good for me

iwols

iwols

Suspended / Banned
Messages
915
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all just thought ide try a bit of landscape photography/stars,the nearest lens ive got to this is the nikon 18-70mm,just wondered if this lens is a worth while purchase compared to the 18-70mm nikon,for landscape/stars thanks
 
UWA lenses need to be carefully thought about in terms of scene composition. They can give a very powerful effect, but its not automatic - read this.

I find mine most effective when I have something in the foreground, and I want to show a lot of the background too, e.g. an impressive vista, but with foreground interest:


IMGP2655 by Pheo, on Flickr

Just shooting a landscape can give mixed results, as often-times you end up with large swathes of foreground in shot which is neither interesting, nor desirable.

However in terms of expanding your repertoire, they can be great, just have to learn to use them appropriately.
 
For the night sky (star trails) you might want to look into the f/3.5 version of the lens or buy the 11-16 f/2.8 tokina, which is excellent anyway.

You really need the largest aperture you can get for those. This does not apply to sunset shots, like this one at 12mm.

Edited: I mixed up the lens brands. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
the 10-20 is a great lens, worth getting but the older one is better than the newer 3.5 by all accounts.
 
how does the sigma 10-20 f4 rate against the tokina 11-16
 
The tokina I've just purchased, super sharp a great buy and it's 2.8 which gives it the edge imho.The Tokina has a dx and dxll version if you decide on that try and get a mint dx as there's no difference between them Tokina says the ll reduces flare slightly more but I'm yet to here anyone that's noticed so better to save a few £
 
Last edited:
thanks guys even more confused now sigma 10-20 f4 or tokina 11-16 f2.8,any more thoughts cheers
 
I had a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 and loved it to bits. Actually, hand on heart, I preferred it over the 17-40 f/4L Canon lens I had afterwards. The Sigma was sharp, had little barrel distortion and had silky smooth focus/zoom rings.

As Pheo says though, composition on a UWA is not to be taken lightly. Taking some photos and actually making them look viewable can be agonising.
 
iwols said:
do tamron do a 11-16
Click to expand...

Tamron do a 10-24, I had one and at best its okay, but earnt its keep for some interiors work.

Out of the two Sigma ultrawides, and I've had multiples of both, the constant f3.5 is much much better - not just faster but a better optics array and sharper throughout with slightly less fringing on the outer 2/3rds of the image. At the moment I'm really into the Sigma 8-16, but can see it having some limitations for landscapes.

Ultimately, you pays your money and gets your goods but for some reason ultrawides are very hit and miss. Try and buy in person where you can test it out first.
 
iwols said:
thanks guys even more confused now sigma 10-20 f4 or tokina 11-16 f2.8,any more thoughts cheers
Click to expand...

There are two Sigma 10-20mm lenses, one has a fixed F/3.5 aperture, the other is F/4-F/5.6.

The Sigma F/3.5 is a similar price to the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8, the Sigma has the advantage or more range, the Tokina is slightly faster and has a rep for being sharper in the boarders.
 
iwols said:
thanks guys even more confused now sigma 10-20 f4 or tokina 11-16 f2.8,any more thoughts cheers
Click to expand...
you can't go wrong with the Tokina, why would you need the longer focal range? We buy wide angle for exactly that, so i would imagine it will be at the wide angle most if not all the time and i'd rather have 2.8 than 3.5 or 4 more difference than 10/11mm and tbh 16-20mm isn't going to be very noticable
 
Last edited:
You'll love the Sigma (never used the Tokina), your landscape photography will improve dramatically with strong foreground items etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top