Sigma 10-20 or 8-16

Does anyone here have experience of both the 10-20 & the 8-16 in the Sigma range?
I would like to have a wide angle lens & would appreciate some opinion from those that may have had hands-on with these two lenses.

Thank you in advance.

I own both and for a couple of years.

The 8-16 is heavier, and another inch longer due to the permanent hood

I would say the 8-16 is slightly better optically, but stopped due to F16 my 10-20 is superb.

8-16 gives you more creativity with composition, but it's limited as you can't use filters, (unless you wan to mess around with gel filters).
8-16 is as wide as you can get but conversely 20mm is a great general focal length and eliminates a lot of lens changing.

It's a bit of luxury owning both but I believe I need the 8-16 for the bits of work I do. That being said I could sell it if I had too.

After 2 years the 8-16 stays in the house most of the time mainly 'cause of weight and lack of filters. You would be struggling to find anyone with a bad thing to say about the 10-20 on the internet.

Lighter and cheaper I would recommend it for the long run.

You only need to see some of the landscapes taken with the 10-20, Larry. Looks like a very desirable lens. Aspirational, really... Looking forward to seeing your super-wide photographs in the Gallery!

Been getting used to a recently acquired (and repaired) 10-20 and I'm beginning to like it a lot. Quite a bit of distortion at the edges but you get experience in handling it. Nice colours, sharp enough.

The reason I plumped for this and not the 8-16 was the filter issue.

Never tried the 8-16 Larry, but love my 10-20, worth every penny!

With all this love for the 10-20 I feel I should stick up for the 8-16, it's really a magnificent lens, but I can't honestly compare it because I've never used the 10-20. I won't deny it's a little chunky - up until I got the DA* 50-135 it was my heaviest lens - but I'll also say I've never regretted carrying the extra weight in my bag. With the minimum 8mm focal length this lens can capture images no other lens could. It's also produces lovely vibrant colours and is crazily sharp for such a wide lens.

The 10-20, as already stated, is a very nice lens to use. Architecture and street shooting are where it excels in my opinion.

Although people at the frame edge when shooting at 10mm can look a little odd.

The thing that surprised me was the lack of strong barrel distortion at the short end, making straight from the camera shots look OK for printing with no extra work.

Depends what your intended use is Larry

For me - the use is 100% landscape - and therefore the 10-20 is my weapon of choice.

The IQ on the 8-16 may be as good or perhaps even slightly better according to some - BUT if I can't attach filters - no use to me at all.

Carl

Are we sure you can't attach filters to the Sigma 8-16mm?

I only have the 10-20mm but SRS are indicating that the 8-16mm can take 72mm filters and offer a bundle with a Kenko UV filter here.

Glyn

The filter screws onto the lens hood which can be left on the lens, but there is a lot of vignetting at the wide end. There is a large amount of curve on the front element which makes fitting a filter direct to the front on the lens impossible.

Chris

I think that's just some automatic link sale ad. A filter for the 8-16 is pretty much is pointless

Thank you all for you feedback. As I want this lens mainly for landscape's, i will be putting the 10-20 on my prezzy list for my B'day.

Best wishes to all, Larry.

I love my 8-16 and I don't think anyone should be put of buying into it because of filter issues, which imo at least aren't really all that necessary with this lens (duck). This filter issue however, seems to have been overcome to some degree, albeit a pricey one! See here:- link

The 8-16 club link is also a good place to see some exceedingly fine examples of what this lens is capable of.

Whatever you buy, enjoy it...