Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 ( or Tamron 10-24) quality & fit in our line up

Hi all,

The rise in what we could sell our Pentax 18-250 for and the SRS special offer on the above Sigma have us seriously considering selling the Pentax to get the Sigma.

We appreciate the job that the 18-250 does but having got the quality of the 35 and 100 (see line up in siggy line) it always slightly disappionts quality wise. We would like to have something wider but only if it's good quality. I have recollections of the Sigma 10-20 being highly rated but can now see that there is also a 10-20 f3.5 HSM, so it could be that I am remebering.

Also having looked at a number of review sites I note the other place rates the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 Di-II LD sharpness better. Does that tie up with peoples experiences? It's £50 more but if it were the differnce between being happy and being disappionted that's nothing.

So questions:

1. We would have a gap 20 / 24- 35mm, we don't photo in that area much so are thinking we could crop the ultra wide when required. Is the quality of the Sigma f4- 5.6 / Tamron 10-24 up to that?

2. If you had to rate the quality of the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 / Tamron 10-24 in comparision to our other lenses (siggy line below) where would you put them. I do not expect they'd match the 35 & 100 primes (which are 10/10 to us) but if it's not better than to 18-250 (which I'd give 6/10) I wouldn't bother.

Thanks to anyone who can help, it's so difficult to compare technical reviews and I have found that real world views from the people here, more helpful.

---

Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod

I can hardly imagine two more different zooms than the 10-20 vs the 18-250 so it seems an odd question. But anyway. After looking at lots of reviews and images I concluded the 10-20 was better than the Tamron 10-24. I would not want to rely on cropping to get the missing focal lengths in your line up though. Buy ultrawides to use at their designed focal lengths. For 20-35mm the kit lens or even better, something like the Tamron 17-50, would be much preferable to cropping.

In fact unless you really need ultra wide, just cut to the chase and get the 17-50. It's awesome.

---

[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

In terms of your sharpness ratings, I'd give the 10-20 a 7-8* and the Tamron 17-50 a 9.5.

* Presuming you can nail focus with it, and at 12mm and UNDER the edges are more like a 6 because of the distortion correction. But you will see distortion with any ultrawide lens at the extreme wide setting.

---

[link=https://500px.com/will_brealey/[/link]

Thanks I appreciate the special needs of an ultra wide in terms of focussing, allowing for distrotion etc.

|I know what you are saying and if we shot ariund there much I'd agree. We rarely shoot 20 - 35 with DSLR, just compact and phones for when we do that as they generally snapshots for us. Certainly wouldn't justify the cost of a Tamron 17-50, if we were to get anything zoomy around there would just bea 18-55 WR, for the WR at cheap cost.

Also, having read 4 years of threads I am aware some suffered from QC sharpness issues hence would only buy from srs, although these issues seem to be less of late.

---

Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod

Umm, lack of responses ( but thanks Pentaxophile)I guess I'm being over hopeful on people having experience of these specific lenses?

I do think ultra wide is something I will enjoy using, so how about I ask which ulta wide would you get- do any others justify spending more than the £329 from SRS for the Sigma 10-20?

---

Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod

I have the 10-20 and think it is a great bit of kit and a bit of fun and at that price new i would not and did not hesitate although i have seen them cheaper used recently.

I just about scrape into the category of 'experience of both', in that a couple of years back, I spent a while in SRS deciding between the 18-250 and 10-20, so it doesn't strike me as an odd question to be asking.

Of course they do different jobs, so it's more about evaluating the two requirements, not so much the lenses that meet them.

All I can say is that although I was impressed with the 'walkaboutability' of the 18-250, I was even more impressed by the UWA, and I bought the 10-20.

Occasionally over time I've found myself wishing I had a 18-250.

But those occasions pale into insignificance compared with the times I've been really glad I have the 10-20.

---

.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

It's even cheaper at SLR Hut (Sorry SRS!) link

Has anyone actually dealt with this company?

There are quite a few scam sites around, all looking superficially convincing.

Edit: this ePhotozine link is interesting.

And this one.

---

.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

Thanks all,

Chris A - your words resonate, the 18-250 stays on the body by default but it doesn't make me want to go out and take photos with it. It's easy to pick up and use but in a way I want my DSLR to challenge me. Perhaps I am not creative enough to get interesting shots with 'normal' lenses and need the advantage of lenses that give unusual views.

It IS a great travel lens and did great on the holiday I bought it for, but as we have no forgiegn travel plans for the next couple of years that aspect isn't attractive right now.

Also thanks for the SLR Gear info. Agree it does look a tempting price but one shop in London and a phone number aparently keeping US time is no comptetion for SRS service when I am spending that sort of money. However, good to know for negotiating purposes Pentax P50!

Geordie 01 - I am SO tempted at that price, but right now do need to sell the 18-250 for a decent price to fund it... and as the one in Classifieds isn't going even for what looks like a great price maybe I will have to save up a bit.

---

Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod

Not much experience of the other lenses (I do have the 55-300 Pentax), but recently bought a Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 after spending 6 months wondering whether to go for that or the Tamron.....and general "hesitating"....

I'm pleased with the Sigma, build quality is very good (better than the 55-300 and 16-45 lenses I have, I expect the DA* and Limiteds are better still). Focus and zoom rings are smooth, no wobbling when the barrel extends (only slightly).

To me it's a sharp lens, the corners are softer, but at f/8-10 (where I tend to use it) not bad at all, even at 10mm. I echo the comment above about nailing focus, some of my shots are soft with no apparent point of focus (operator error rather than kit problem I think!).

A sample at 14mm f/8 on a K10D (not particularly great for evaluation at web resolution, but on the original I can make out individual grains of sand in the foreground):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61508593@N04/6647870797/in/photostream

Thanks & Good shot DarkM, I live near the North Devon coast and from your shot and others I have seen it really adds a certain something to beach shots.

The sharpness of the 55-300 would be perfectly acceptable to me, do you feel they are similar?

---

Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod

Eastridge - yes I'd say the IQ of the 55-300 and 10-20 is pretty similar, possibly the Sigma has the edge in centre sharpness but I haven't used it enough yet to be sure of that.

Thanks

---

Sharon's: K-x, FA35/2, DA 18-250.Glen's: K10D, DA100 Macro, 55-300, Paragon 500, Silk Pro700 Tripod

I have had the 10-24 Tamron when I had my Nikon kit. Liked the Tamron a lot though I had quite serious problems focusing on my D40 ( was great on the D7000). Because of the problems with it on the D40 I got the Nikkor 12-24, IQ wise it was quite a bit apart.

I now have a 10-20 Sigma for the K-5 and if I was very honest it is not great. Not sure it is far behind the Tamron (it is definitely behind) but it is way behind that Nikkor.

I would suggest you give a try to the 12-24 Pentax. I never got to try it but if it is anything like the Nikkor it will simply be a much better lens than either of the two you are considering. Unfortunately the price of the Pentax is quite high.

Best go try the lot