Quantcast
Any Sigma 10-20 EX owners on here?? - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Any Sigma 10-20 EX owners on here??

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    My Ride
    2015 VW GTI
    Posts
    3,716
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Any Sigma 10-20 EX owners on here??

    Looking at picking this up next week.... 28mm just ain't wide enough, but I'm not looking to spend the 1G+ for the Canon version...

    Just looking for some reviews... I went thru FM already, looking for more of a "in town" review..

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    13 AUDI A4, 14 TUNDRA SR5, 12 VW GOLF TDI
    Posts
    540
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Try ebay friend, you can get it for 600 max.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    My Ride
    2015 VW GTI
    Posts
    3,716
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    I can get it cheap in town... just wanted some reviews from Beyonders...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Elbonia
    My Ride
    Jeep of Theseus
    Posts
    6,405
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Funny you should bring that up, I was wondering the same thing. I'm trying to decide on a getting the Sigma, a telephoto, or saving up for an 18-200VR. Ah, the decisions...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    My Ride
    2015 VW GTI
    Posts
    3,716
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    well i got the 28-70... and I NEVER used my 70-200, it such wasn't a style of shooting I did much of... I'm a close quarters shooter...

    So a SWA is a MUST in my bag right now...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary AB
    My Ride
    W204
    Posts
    2,706
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    From what I read, the Sigma 10-20 is a pretty weak wide angle. You can't beat the Canon or Nikon (for Nikon owners) glass. Even the cheaper Tokina 12-24 can outperform the Sigma (though I am searching without luck, for a Tokina retailer in Calgary). It apparently has really weird distortion that is not easy to fix and bad CA, whereas the Canon 11-22 is more predictable. It's also not as sharp.

    Sigma recently released a 12-24 that is almost $1,000. Not sure what is so great about that lens. For that price, I'd much rather buy Canon/Nikon, so there must be something special about it.

    And BCS: good luck if you're saving up for the 18-200VR. If you haven't placed your order yet, then saving up will not do you any good cause you won't be able to get it even if you have $$$. It's a nice lens (I already put my name down - expecting POST xmas). I honestly think this is one of those "convenience lenses" for taking on a trip. I have a 80-200 2.8 and I am fairly convinced it won't replace it.

    If you're looking for an incredible Canon lens, the 17-55f/2.8 IS USM is really hard to beat.
    You have a couple of photos that are great... you must be very good at photoshop!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Elbonia
    My Ride
    Jeep of Theseus
    Posts
    6,405
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Originally posted by clem24


    And BCS: good luck if you're saving up for the 18-200VR. If you haven't placed your order yet, then saving up will not do you any good cause you won't be able to get it even if you have $$$. It's a nice lens (I already put my name down - expecting POST xmas). I honestly think this is one of those "convenience lenses" for taking on a trip. I have a 80-200 2.8 and I am fairly convinced it won't replace it.
    I'm painfully aware of the waiting lists for the 18-200, but I'm quite sure Nikon will fill the list orders eventually. Probably around the time I scrounge enough on a my limited budget. The 80-200F2.8 is a fantastic hunk of glass (Tried one out last weekend, I've never felt AF that torqued before) but still more expensive than the 18-200 and I use wide-mid zoom more than I do telephoto. The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is in the same price range as the 18-200, and it's a rather tempting option.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,505
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    The canon really is worth the money, well if you can find it used for a good price. Performance is excellent, flare control is unreal, not even noticible with the sun in the frame.

    Here's a rare Tokina 12-24 in CAN
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/437177
    Last edited by lint; 08-17-2006 at 11:41 AM.
    heloc that shit

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    NOR/CAL
    My Ride
    a nice pair of and1's
    Posts
    1,668
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    D'z has used the tokina 12-24 and he loves it.

    I caved and bought the Nikon 12-24... gotta have the nikon glass =P

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    My Ride
    (maah raahde)
    Posts
    5,797
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Originally posted by clem24
    It apparently has really weird distortion that is not easy to fix and bad CA
    I considered the Sigma 10-20 a while back as a secondary UWA lens I could keep on my IR body without needing to swap my Tokina back and forth. After a bit of reading around, these were the samples I saw that turned me off:

    http://www.pbase.com/audible/image/48221495

    and



    That's some ugly ass distortion. Granted, it's very well possible the lenses used in these examples were bad copies, but even then a lot of people were commenting on it's poor image quality.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary AB
    My Ride
    W204
    Posts
    2,706
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Hey where'd you get your Tokina from? Does ANYONE in Calgary actually sell these lenses? Anyone have samples from Sigma's new 12-24 and know why it's so expensive?
    You have a couple of photos that are great... you must be very good at photoshop!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,505
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally posted by clem24
    Hey where'd you get your Tokina from? Does ANYONE in Calgary actually sell these lenses? Anyone have samples from Sigma's new 12-24 and know why it's so expensive?
    Tokina does not have any authorized dealers in Can. I believe you have to purchase from the US or from someone who did purchase from the US.

    I don't believe Sigma has a new 12-24 out, not according to the sigmaphoto site. But the cost may be due to the fact that it can be used on a FF camera and is the widest zoom you can get for a FF.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    My Ride
    (maah raahde)
    Posts
    5,797
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Originally posted by clem24
    Hey where'd you get your Tokina from? Does ANYONE in Calgary actually sell these lenses? Anyone have samples from Sigma's new 12-24 and know why it's so expensive?
    I got it at B&H. Like lint said, Tokina has no authorized dealers in Canada.

    If you're referring to the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6, it's not new. It's been out for a few number of years. From what I've read, my impression that it's a pretty mediocre lens compared to the Tokina 12-24, Canon 10-22, Nikon 12-24. Sharpness and colour is supposed to be so-so. However, the only benefit of it is that you can use it on a FF body without any vignetting that the other mentioned lenses will give, the Sigma 10-20 included.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary AB
    My Ride
    W204
    Posts
    2,706
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    O I C. I guess that makes sense. Looks like I'll have to track down the Tokina elsewhere then. I think it's worth it to try it out before shelling out double the money for the Nikon.
    You have a couple of photos that are great... you must be very good at photoshop!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary AB
    My Ride
    W204
    Posts
    2,706
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Hey so I've been reading up on the FF Sigma 12-24. This seems to be a complete mixed bag. There was one site that said it was sharp all around, had very little CA, and almost no distortion (unlike the 10-20 with it's weird lines). The pictures were absolutely amazing.

    http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/R..._f4.5-5.6.html

    Then in a different article, it was basicallly "skip it, soft all over". Can't remember article.

    So has anyone here actually tried it? From all the samples I've seen, this appears to be a very good lens, especially if you can find a good used one (cheap). I also like the fact that it can be used wtih FF, which is just absolutely mind boggling.
    You have a couple of photos that are great... you must be very good at photoshop!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2005 Rav4
    Posts
    77
    Rep Power
    0

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary AB
    My Ride
    W204
    Posts
    2,706
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Wow thanks. Unfortunately it says nothing about the Sigma 12-24. He just says it sucks, end of story. He likes to bash Sigma a lot, and calls them "budget lenses". Some are, but some aren't. Nikon also has their collection of budget/crappy lenses.

    BTW, I've read most of Ken Rockwell's stuff. He's generally frank but he's also got some seemingly very biased articles in there. I agree with a lot of what he has to say, but there's also a lot that he doesn't take into consideration (i.e. big aperture lenses are obsolete - just boost the ISO or use VR )
    You have a couple of photos that are great... you must be very good at photoshop!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary AB
    My Ride
    W204
    Posts
    2,706
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    As an addendum to this post, I got an opportunity to borrow a Sigma 10-20 over the weekend. First off, this is a very impressive lens, I think. It seems to be a nice hunk of glass. Nothing about it really screams "cheap" to me. Second, although the tests show weird distortion in the lens, I find that in the real world, things like this don't really matter too much. It's not likely that you'll be shooting perfect horizontal lines all the time, and esp. with a wide angle like this one, you'll probably be shooting stuff at angles, etc...

    That said, the 10-20 is quite a slow lens (it stopped down about 1/3 stop by the time it hit 12mm). Corners are maybe a tad soft, but just about every wide has this problem. In any case, I think this is a decent performer, and would probably be my first choice if it weren't for the existence of the Tokina (which I plan to pick up in Spokane this weekend if I can get it past the wifey... )
    You have a couple of photos that are great... you must be very good at photoshop!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Edmonton
    My Ride
    Megun/Kyosho/965
    Posts
    3,138
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Just from my experience .. I love the Tokina 12-24 ..

    From most test .. it rated as good as both Canon and Nikon one .. and for 2/3 the price ..

    It is F4 all the way .. I love fixed focal ... I like it more then 3.5-4.5 or whatever ..

    Another credit is, I can still use it on FF or EOS 1D, with 1.3x crop, if on FF .. then only 19-24mm range can be use .. which is still not bad .. on 1.3x .. I can use from 14-24mm .. which is still slightly wider then my 16-35 ..

    My buddy just got his Tokina from BH .. $495 US .. + shipping .. tax .. duty .. app. $660 cad in total! good deal! Warranty may be an issue .. however, for Nikon lens, you need to send it back to Toronto for fixing anyway .. not much diff then send a lens to US.
    The Original !

    1234567, hҦho

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary AB
    My Ride
    W204
    Posts
    2,706
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    It seems hard to find someone that actually has experience with the Sigma 12-24. Just about all of the sample pics I've seen seem to indicate that this lens is really the superior one out of all the other ones, plus it fits an FF, which just blows me away.

    Even tests show this lens to have barely no distortion at all (which I believe is derived from the fact that it was designed for an FF since you're using the best part of the glass). It appears that you can also get this lens for a farily good price on eBay. So I think this Sigma might be the winner for me. The only downside is the gel filters.
    You have a couple of photos that are great... you must be very good at photoshop!

Similar Threads

  1. FS: Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 APO DG Macro II

    By hingkit in forum Miscellaneous Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 3
    Latest Threads: 08-06-2006, 09:39 AM
  2. FS: Sigma 28-200mm 3.5-5.6 (for Canon AF)

    By SportTwin in forum Miscellaneous Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 1
    Latest Threads: 05-30-2006, 05:41 PM
  3. FS: Sigma 28-200 F3.5-5.6 Macro Zoom Lense

    By SportTwin in forum Miscellaneous Buy/Sell/Trade
    Replies: 2
    Latest Threads: 01-08-2006, 09:58 PM
  4. Any G35 Coupe owners here in Calgary?

    By bigbadboss101 in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 28
    Latest Threads: 10-14-2004, 11:47 PM
  5. Any SVT Foci owners here ???

    By fast95pony in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 18
    Latest Threads: 02-25-2003, 01:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •