Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, the cure for full frame?

[William]

Recently picked up this lens after long wanting a proper wide lens and coming to terms with the fact that the Pentax 12-24 is simply too expensive. Now I'm glad that I didn't wait to get a 12-24 because I'd be missing out on that magic 10mm. From reading reviews it also seemed that the f3.5 version of the Sigma was less sharp than it's slower counterpart and that the slightly more expensive Tamron wasn't any better than the Sigma.

I have to say though, my only previous experiences with Sigma equipment were with one of the older DSLRs which handled like a particularly unergonomic brick and a super cheap long tele zoom (probably a 70-300) which has to be one of the worst lenses I've ever used. It was soft, CA was truly horrific and even the colours had little saturation. Having seen samples of their better lenses I've since found that Sigma make good and bad ones and the 10-20 is one of the good ones.

Build quality is very good, it feels solid in the hand without being overly heavy. Focus ring is typically "AF" but then isn't too loose and precise focusing on a lens this wide isn't that important. It's the first time I've used AF on a DSLR and felt confident. The zoom ring is pretty much perfect and there's no noticeable wobble in the lens but then it doesn't extend far. Balance on the camera is a thing I find most reviews to ignore (not that this is a serious review) but it's just right on the K-5, like a smaller and lighter 5D/17-40 combo. This lens will happily sit on the chest and not pull the camera down with it.

Optically, I am delighted with this lens. It's one to use at f8 wherever possible and at that aperture it can deliver quite surprising sharpness throughout the focal length range. I expected to find it a lot less sharp than a classic 50mm but at optimal aperture with a little sharpening it's nearly in the same league as the M 50/1.7. CA is well controlled and vignetting at a level at which it's easily correctable although it feels more natural with a little vignetting at times. The lens is contrasty too and with tweaking gives proper colour pop in decent light.

The 10-20 is a joy to use and a surprisingly good walkaround lens. The naturally huge DOF means that focusing isn't really an issue and the metering is pretty accurate which leaves you to just concentrate on creating/finding and composing a scene. The feeling of space can be immense at times and this is not just useful for the practical photography but I find it fascinating seeing the world in a different way. 10mm feels surprisingly natural due to the FOV roughly equating to that of the whole field of human vision, much in the same way a standard lens gives the FOV that you see in focus.

Here are some examples from my ferry trip across the Channel on my way to Amsterdam. A thread of Amsterdam photos will follow. Sorry for the bias but it really does always seem to be cloudy in Calais.


Looking back on Dover



Cruising



Bienvenue En France

[mdarnton]

When I got my D300, it was the very first lens I bought. It turns out to be much better than I thought it would be. Recently someone asked for a picture of me, so I shot this with it, at 20mm. I was surprised at the results. Here's the full res version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/6846924347/sizes/o/in/set-72157604235654981/

I wouldn't normally have used this lens for such a thing, but since it was a self-portrait, and kind of a tight fit for the tripod, I wanted to be able to easily adjust the framing by zooming.

[William]

It is certainly very versatile, and you've shown that it's more than capable of serious portraiture. There's a lot of enjoyment to be had pit out of making more light hearted portraits with it. It would not be wise to make a photo of a woman at 10mm with it though, nor an off centred one for reasons of personal safety.


Friends behind Amsterdam Centraal Station


Tomasso in London