which 10-20 - if at all?

So here I am wondering whether or not I want or even need a nice wide addition to my kit.

Well i know i want one and that one/s that I've been getting more and more attracted to are the Sigmas 10-20's, the only question i have is:

Is the F3.5 worth the extra £100 over the F4-5.6? Clearly there's more than just F numbers here too, the HSM should be a benefit for starters.
There are some other lenses out there in this arena but are they any better, i just don't know? I am more than willing to be swayed either way...

Unfortunately I have never used anything wider than the 16-50 I already own so have no experience in this field.

Any help / experiences appreciated.

AJ

Just about the best lens you can buy in ultrawides is the SMC Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 which is just superb.

Don't forget the Tamron 10-24mm ultrawide, its cheaper than the Sigma and Pentax versions. But not sure about IQ with the Tamron.

Having owned the Sigma 10-20mm (not the HSM version) and now the Pentax 12-24mm I have to agree with John, it is superb. But very expensive.

SRS have an "as new" Samsung 12-24 for £499, which is not that much more than the Sigma or Tamron.

I bought one in preference after trying several of the others to ensure a good copy. The 12-24 was better than the best of the others.

Thanks guys. I have never looked that closely at the 12-24 I must admit I thought it was over priced when comparing like for like with other options.

I felt it was a little too close to my 16-50 to really justify the cost. Plus with the larger aperture and wider angle on the new Sigma it seemed to all make perfect sense....

Looks like it could be a fairly expensive open day at SRS either way. Although I guess it will be a good chance to try the different options out and hopefully sway me one way or the other.

Thanks again.

For what it's worth - there have been reports saying that the old slower Sigma 10-20 is sharper, especially in the corners, than the newer faster Sigma 10-20.

To be honest I'm not sure if there is much benefit to having an HSM ultrawide. I cannot think of many instances where quieter focussing would be important (and it's not that loud to begin with).

the difference between 16 and 12 is immense.

See also http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm for a compare between a tok 11-16 and a 12-24.

Bret

There's a sigma 12-24 which looks very nice- and it's full frame which increases its appeal (sadly no aperture ring though). Anyone tried that one?

I've used the Sigma 12-24 on a Nikon. Nice lens, but the front element is like a ball and sticks out so much you cannot attach filters to it. Even the lenscap is like a fisheye lenscap, more of a slide-on cup than a cap.

I've just sold my Sigma 10-20. I just didn't use it. I thought I would but in the end I just didn't like the ultra wide angle view. I can get my netbook now, which I will use .

Is there anyone near you who has one you can try before spending your hard earned money on one?

Thanks Bret, interesting comparison.
If the difference between 12 and 16 is really THAT much, is it safe to assume that the difference again between 10 and 12 is substantial too?

Thanks again.

Don't forget that Sigma announced the 8-16mm at PMA this year.

I'm not sure when it will available & what the price is likely to be, but if you want wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide, it could be worth waiting for.

How do you say it... the difference is relative of the focal length.

The difference between 10mm & 20mm is the same as 300mm & 600mm, the difference is both with the power of 2.

Difference between 12 & 16 is 1.33X
10 & 12 = 1.2X

Shooting a photo at 10mm is hard though, 12X24 is a more useful focal length.

You may need to go and have a try for yourself to see.

Bear in mind that at the wider end, depending on design, there can be some inconsistencies. For example, for film cameras there has been a 15mm rectilinear lens with an AOV of 110 degrees and a longer local length 16mm fisheye with a 180 degree angle.

Also, all marked focal lengths are approximations and tend to favour looking good. So a 24mm lens is often more like 25mm. A 12-24mm zoom that actually was might not be much different from a 10-20mm that was actually 10.8-19.4mm. I'm not saying this is actually the case, but it might be.

Really? I find it almost irresistible and as hard as pressing the shutter release. The 10-20 always seems to gravitate towards 10.