Sigma 10-20mm Lens for Pentax K20D

Both these lenses have been well received. A better lens is the Pentax 12-24mm, especially as straight lines stay straight without distortion, but the price is much higher.

Hopefully someone who owns the lensaes in question will be along soon to give you some of their thoughts on them.

The 10-20 is great value. My brother in law uses the lens almost exclusively for his landscape photos, and has sold many lovely prints.

General consensus is that the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 is great. The faster, newer, more expensive Sigma 10-20 f3.5 is also good but not quite as sharp. The Tamron 10-24 has the best range but has the 'least good' reputation (meaning they are all supposed to be good lenses, but the Tamron is the one least raved about).

I have the old Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, it's an awesome lens. I can't see any appreciable difference between photos from it and someone elses Pentax 12-24 (except that 10mm is noticeably wider than 12mm and over here in the UK costs £400 instead of £900 ).

As I recall, the older(4-5.6) version of the 10-20 is considered much better than the newer (3.5) version.

I don't think the older version ever had HSM in the Pentax mount (most Sigma lenses are still screwdrive for Pentax) despite how they are listed. The new one does, though. I'm pretty sure the K20d can use HSM lenses though, as they work the same as Pentax SDM just a different TLA (three letter acronym).

I'd certainly recommend it if you can get it at a good price, they are quite common second hand as its a popular lens and (I believe) very reliable.

OTOH, the Pentax 12-24 is fanastic but horribly pricey - I only have one because I got it at an exceptional deal, otherwise I'd have bought the Sigma. Whichever you get, you'll love it - but make sure you've got some software that can do lens-correction, as with either lens there is some distortion at the wide-end - not a problem with landscapes but any buildings will need some slight attention.

I have the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 it's a very good lens, works perfectly on the K20D, non HSM but not really needed on a lens I use for lanscape
Less distortion than the newer f/3.5 version and smaller filter size 77mm as opposed to 82mm, apparently sharper at the edges too. The Pentax 12-24 is very good, constant f/4 aperture, very sharp, lovely colour rendering and contrast, not as wide and more complicated distortion

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/146-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-ex-dc-pentax-k-review-...
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/133-pentax-da-12-24mm-f4-al-ed-if-review--test-re...

Regards,

John

Unfortunately I'm going against the grain a little again

I owned the Sigma 10-20 but didn't find it to my liking for landscape use so have now sold it. If you haven't already I'd suggest trying one out before buying just to be sure it suits your "style". I much prefer the Pentax DA 17-70

Simon

I'm with Simon I'm afraid. I too had a Sigma 10-20 but sold it, as I didn't like it for landscapes. I also prefer the Pentax 17-70.

I agree if you can you should try before you buy to see if it suits you. It is an expensive mistake to make otherwise.

Or buy second hand. These lenses are in demand so you won't have trouble selling it on.

I own the 10-20 f4-5.6, and when I bought it a few months ago I had the same dilemma so I'll give the advantages of each as I saw them then:

10-20 f4-5.6 (old one):
*Sharper
*Better distortion (old one has 'weird' distortion at 10mm and then is fine for the rest of the range, while the new one has barrel distortion for more of the range)
*Lens is cheaper (by about £50)
*Cheaper and easier to obtain filters (77mm on this vs 82mm on the new one)

10-20 f3.5 (new one):
*Faster (one-and-a-third stops at the long end), which could be important for interiors or lowish light (though remember you can go down to 1/15 shutter speed at the wide end!)
*Silent HSM focusing
*I think, though I'm not certain, that it has quick shift (ie the ability to use the manual focus ring while in AF mode)

I was originally looking at the DA12-24 but gave up when Walters (the last store to have them at what I considered an acceptable price) sold out. It really is stupidly expensive now, but is faster than the old version of the Sigma 10-20 and sharper than both versions.

However, having gotten used to my 10-20 I am glad that I didn't get a DA12-24, because I find myself using the Sigma at 10mm the majority of the time: the Sigma 10-20 takes much better photos at 10mm than the DA12-24 does

I am currently using a 16-45mm for most of my landscape shots,I was thinking of buying a 10-20mm lens but when I looked at my portfolio saw that hardly any of my shots were at 16mm most were taken between 20-28mm.
I've decided to go for the 21mm prime but will have to save a few more pennies.