Sigma or Tamron UWA - Canon mount

[William]

An example of people Distortion , Son Joel at Fingal , Check feet and Bum , He's actually quite slim and fit, Look at his right foot !!

[mikew09]

I have the older Siggy 10-20 f4/5.6 , I hear the new one is a lot more expensive and I'm wondering why you would need a fast Widey Especially seeing most times it's used on a Tripod anyway At or around the Golden hours PS: Anyway who takes Landscapes at 3.5, PPS, Please correct me if I'm wrong or I'm missing something - Bill

Hi Bill, exactly my question. If IQ such as sharpness, colour contrast and such are equally as good why buy the more expensive model. So I am leaning towards the cheaper model siggy 10-20 unless I start hearing the IQ with the new lens is leagues above the older one.

Thanks for the post matey.

[mikew09]

An example of people Distortion , Son Joel at Fingal , Check feet and Bum , He's actually quite slim and fit, Look at his right foot !!

Hmm, mental note - when I get the siggy, don't take photos of wife at edge of frame - "does my bum look big in this photo" :-)

Thanks for the help William, gratefully accepted.

[mikew09]

An example of people Distortion , Son Joel at Fingal , Check feet and Bum , He's actually quite slim and fit, Look at his right foot !!

Oh, by the way. As far as IQ goes this is a nice shot, apart from some distortion which I think is likey with all UWA's and is something to be mindful of. So just so I am clear Bill, are you saying the distortion is due to the angle the shot was taken and that the distortion would have been minimal if taken on the same horizontal level as the subject?

I still like this shot.

Thanks Mike

[mikew09]

Hi All, only have limited time to put to AP during the day so want to say thanks for all the responses so far around the siggy 10-20.

[William]

The distortion will still happen even if you are on a level plane , I took some family shots when I first got it , The people on either end were'nt happy

[mikew09]

The distortion will still happen even if you are on a level plane , I took some family shots when I first got it , The people on either end were'nt happy

Hmmmm - something I had not considered. I had assumed that distortion was not that bad.

[William]

It is !! , But I'm talking 10mm , Full wide , Especially on Verticals , The good thing with the Sigma is the Horizon stays dead straight , No curve at all

[mikew09]

It is !! , But I'm talking 10mm , Full wide , Especially on Verticals , The good thing with the Sigma is the Horizon stays dead straight , No curve at all

I might have a play with one of these before I purchase. I assume the UWA takes a little getting used too.

[William]

Sure does , A bit of a beast , You will find it hard to deal with your Shadow , Tripod legs , Your feet , They all get in the way , I can hold mine in portrait orientation looking through the view finder and see my feet and the sky in one image Once you tame it they are great , Exeptional image quality , And great DOF right through from 1mtr to the Horizon

[mikew09]

Sure does , A bit of a beast , You will find it hard to deal with your Shadow , Tripod legs , Your feet , They all get in the way , I can hold mine in portrait orientation looking through the view finder and see my feet and the sky in one image Once you tame it they are great , Exeptional image quality , And great DOF right through from 1mtr to the Horizon

Thanks William - that has settled me a little - gave me a bit of a scare before.

[William]

Hey Mike , Last comment on the Widey , Get one !! , Have a look at all my Seascapes , All taken with the Sigma 10-20 , I'm not promoting the Siggy at all , Canon 10-22 in awesome as well , Just the siggy is a lot cheaper and does'nt lack IQ , If your down my way give me a PM and you can try mine if you like - Bill

[mikew09]

Hey Mike , Last comment on the Widey , Get one !! , Have a look at all my Seascapes , All taken with the Sigma 10-20 , I'm not promoting the Siggy at all , Canon 10-22 in awesome as well , Just the siggy is a lot cheaper and does'nt lack IQ , If your down my way give me a PM and you can try mine if you like - Bill

Excellent - just had a revisit of some of your shots and remember seeing them before and thinkin how awesome they were. Great work mate, especially some of the portraits seascape witht the UWA - excellent. I think that has sealed it. Save a little more and soon I will start working on my usual rep at Teds to beat him down - he always ducks for cover when he see's me enter the shop :-). Not being one of the wealthy I bargain pretty hard to get the best deal ;-).

Thanks for the info, very helpful.

[Roosta]

mikew09, I am going through the same dilema. I used the Tamron and found it worthy, I liked the MF/AF selector(Slide ring) but I used it at night, so it limited what I was able to shoot.

The Sigma F3.5 hasn't gotten any thing the older lens can offer beside slightly quicker Ap, As William has pointed out, not an issue for the typical land/sea scape type photography.

P.S Will, was the shot of Joel at 10mm ? If so thats quite normal.

By all accounts I've read and to the lenses I've used, The Sigma 10-22 F4 - F5.6 is the winner. In saying that tho, The Canon 10-20 has better IQ, but at atleast nearly twice the price, is it worth it? some say yes, some don't believe so.

[Roosta]

Sorry Mike, Slight bum steer, It was the Tokina 12-24mm I used with slip ring focus changer, It was a great lens in night shooting.

Also as mentioned previously, use the CR Kennedy Price Match Option, At the moment the Sigma 10-20 F4 -5.5 is $479.00 on DWI. Popular lens, so they should have local stock.

[joele]

I have owned both the Tokina 12-24mm f4 and the Sigma 10-20mm (when I still used APS-C), to be honest I preferred the Tokina 12-24/4 it is a great lens Not that the Sigma was bad I just found the distortion a bit lower with the Tokina and it has amazingly good build quality.. Sharpness was about the same for both, though you have to play the Sigma QC lottery (though that may be better these days, I haven't bought one in a while)..

Though from a reliable ebay trader like say citiwide it is going to cost you around $570 delivered (express post)..

So CRK are still selling direct to the public?

[Roosta]

So CRK are still selling direct to the public?

See link for full details.

http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index...price%20match&

[mikew09]

I have owned both the Tokina 12-24mm f4 and the Sigma 10-20mm (when I still used APS-C), to be honest I preferred the Tokina 12-24/4 it is a great lens Not that the Sigma was bad I just found the distortion a bit lower with the Tokina and it has amazingly good build quality.. Sharpness was about the same for both, though you have to play the Sigma QC lottery (though that may be better these days, I haven't bought one in a while)..

Though from a reliable ebay trader like say citiwide it is going to cost you around $570 delivered (express post)..

So CRK are still selling direct to the public?

Thanks for the advie Joel.

[mikew09]

See link for full details.

http://www.crkennedy.com.au/v1/index...price%20match&

Thanks again Roosta, I have pretty much always bought from the same rep at Teds and to date with some hard haggling there is not that greater difference between grey etc. I think there is value in building a relationship with a retail store. Lets see how I go with the purchase of the sigma in the short term ;-).

[dulvariprestige]

I haven't noticed anyone mention the tokina 11-16 2.8, never used one, but IQ seems to be in high regards when I've read about it.

The thing the sigma has going for it over the tamron and tokina is focus speed, not an issue for landscapes, but it does come in handy if you do happen to shoot fast moving objects.

Also, the 3.5 has a 82mm filter, which means more $$ for filters.

Last thing, I had the sigma for a year, and just upgraded to the canon 10-22mm and love it, IQ is better, but not twice as good, as it's nearly twice the price of the sigma.