Denisedancer Loc: Sydney Australia

I have a Canon 600D with a Canon 18-200mm lens. I am thinking of buying a Sigma 10-20mm lens for wide angle photography.

Two questions that I hope someone can help me with -

1. Can anyone advise if I will achieve a lot of difference between the 10mm and 18mm of these two lenses. In other words is it worth my buying the 10-20mm lens?

2. If I go ahead and buy the 10-20mm lens, is it worth paying the extra money to get the f3.5 or is the f4.5 sufficient for most occasions?

I'm doing a tour in May from Denver to Las Vegas via pretty much all of the National Parks enroute. I would really appreciate any advice on whether it would be worthwhile me buying the 10-20mm lens considering that I have the 18-200mm.

Many thanks in anticipation. If anyone had two photos of the same location showing the difference between the 10mm and 20mm that would be absolutely fantastic.

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

Good questions. Hard answers.

I can tell you what I prefer and why..

For landscape I'd get a prime lens, but the 10-20mm would be fine. And again, for landscape (assuming 95% shot from a good tripod) the f/4.5 would be fine (longer exposures).

But if I also want to use this lens for interior shots, street shots, and other uses, well, then the 10-20mm would be more flexible and the faster f/3.5 is a must have.

My suiggestion is to go to a camera store that carries these lenses and test them out on your 600D while talking to more than one sales person. Only then will you know what you are buying and why it was the best decision for you.

No good camera shop nearby - I'd take a nice relaxing road trip with the shop as just one stop while you shoot whatever looks interesting along the way.

unclebe1 Loc: NYC & Wellington, FL

A quick check of the photozone reviews of the lens http://www.photozone.de/component/content/article/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon for the f3.5 and http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/308-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-dc-ex-hsm-lab-test-report--review?start=1 for the f4-5.6, would indicate, to me at least, that for situations where you don't really need the wider aperture (and that would generally apply to most all the landscape/outdoor uses), the f4-5.6 is the better choice - especially in the extreme corners, where the f3.5 lens has relatively poor results. Hope this helps!

Curtis_Lowe Loc: Georgia

Great advise!

Last April I took a Canon 60D & EF 17-40 f4 to the Grand Canyon and was pleased. Got the lens for the trip {once in a lifetime trip}. Just got a 6D and mounted the lens and was shocked at the difference going from Cropped to FF.

I would advise anyone buying a new lens to consider if they might ever want to go to a FF and by an EF in lieu of an EF-S mount.

I always like the try it advise when spending big$.

Denisedancer Loc: Sydney Australia

Festina Lente thanks for your suggestions. I do have a good camera store at a nearby shopping centre. I'll pay them a visit. I was wondering whether it was worth lugging a tripod on my trip, but a friend has kindly lent me one which is fairly small and a lot lighter than my own so I'll take that one. I'm just wondering if I will get much difference in a photo using the 10-20 compared to the 18-200 lens I already have.

Denisedancer Loc: Sydney Australia

Unclebe1 thanks for the links. A lot of that technical stuff is a bit over my head apart from the final verdicts, so thanks also for your summary.

Denisedancer Loc: Sydney Australia

Curtis Lowe thanks for your advice. I'm not sure what all the initials mean - is FF full frame? I haven't got my head around that yet. I seriously doubt I shall upgrade my camera for many years to come. Although I love photography, I am not terribly good at it. I don't know what the EF and EF-S lens mounts mean either. I shall take the advice to head to the Camera store to try and check out the two lenses. A friend who is rather more experienced in photography than me, says there wouldn't be much difference between the 10-20 and my 18-200 lens so I shouldn't bother buying the 10-20? Since I'm doing this big trip in May I'm keen to see if it is worth buying the 10-20. Some of the NP's I'm visiting are Canyonlands, Mesa Verdi, Arches, Sion, Bryce, Grand Canyon. Cannot wait.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I would strongly advise that there is a significant difference between 18mm and 10mm.
I think your friend is wrong.
I am primarily a landscape and seascape photographer.
If I had your camera and I could only choose 1 lens for landscape photography it would be either the 10-22mm Canon or the Sigma 10-20mm F/4.5-5.6.
I own this Sigma lens and use it on my Nikon D90. I already had the Nikon 18-200mm VRii.

The Sigma 10-20mm revitalised my photography. It is a brilliant landscape lens.
I wouldn't worry about paying the extra for the F/3.5.
You will take 99% of your shots at F/8 to F/22.

That is what these ultrawides are about - front to back sharpness and a strong foreground.
With this lens on your camera you can be in focus from 5 inches to infinity - so get low and close to a flower or a rock and put the Grand Canyon or a group of mesa behind it.
The slot canyons will love it.
With good light you will take the best pics you have ever taken.
It will blow the 18-200mm out of the water!!

billypip Loc: nottingham England

I have the slower Sig 10-20 and love it, i agree with lighthouse regarding the 3.5 in that why would you want or even need the extra speed when shooting scapes at narrower apertures ? Save your money and go with the 4.5.

Trevor Dennis Loc: New Zealand (South Island)

I'd say go for the 10-20mm definitely. The Sigma is a great lens, and is not too expensive, and can give you sharp focus from about 12 inches to infinite. That exteme depth of field along with the exagerated perspect of a true ultra-wide, will give some outstanding creative opertunites.

I used to have the Sigma back when I used a 30D, and I really miss it. I have the 17-40mm which is not too far behind on a full frame body, but it just isn't the same somehow.

So get it. You'll love it.

shagbat Loc: London

I have had the f4/5.6 for 4 years and I love it.
I use it almost always with a polariser or graduated nd filter.
Forget the more expensive f3.5, it does not except normal filters and in the test I read, was not optically superior.
Hope this helps.

AdkHiker Loc: Northeast

Or rent the lens and take it to the field...that is what sold me on the Sigma 10-20

banjonut Loc: Southern Michigan

I shoot Nikon and have the 18-200 and the Sigma 10-20 that you mentioned, so we're talking pretty close, apples to apples.

The 18-200 stays on the camera most of the time, but when the occasion arises, out comes the 10-20. You can get a lot of "stuff" into the frame that the 18-200 will not get. And the ability to include the closup objects in the frame can be very powerful. This is a very good lens, and if something happened to mine, I would be ordering a replacement in a heartbeat.

On Nikon, the equivalent is 15-30mm while the 18-200 is 27mm on the short end. Quite a difference between 15 and 27. Your Canon will be very close to this.

DO IT!😃

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Banjonut means - On Nikon fullframe, the equivalent is 15-30mm while the 18-200 is equivalent to fullframe27mm on the short end. Quite a difference between 15 and 27. Your Canon will be very close to this.

shagbat Loc: London

Nikon 10-24mm is a clear winner.

Sharpness is excellent even at the largest aperture, and images have bags of contrast, even when lighting conditions are flat and gloomy. The ring-type AF-S autofocus system is superbly fast, practically inaudible in operation and comes complete with full-time manual focus override.

Build quality is a good match for Nikon's top APS-C cameras, such as the D7000 and D300s, yet the lens still feels well balanced on lightweight bodies such as the D3100.

The only sticking point with the Nikon is that it's by far the most expensive lens in the group. For a more modest outlay, both Sigma 10-20mm lenses offer advanced features, but the older Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 version is particularly good value.

The Tamron 10-24mm is the cheapest zoom lens in the group, but suffered from exposure inconsistencies in our tests and lacks the Sigma lenses' ring-type ultrasonic autofocus.

For maximum wide-angle coverage, the Sigma 8-16mm is a tempting proposition, but image quality isn't quite as good as with the two Sigma 10-20mm lenses. Another alternative is the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye lens, which gives the widest angle of view in the group.

But the fisheye effect is more of an oddity than something that will appeal on a regular basis. At the other end of the scale, the angle of view offered by the Samyang 14mm and Tokina 12-24mm lenses are disappointing, and the Samyang's distortion is pronounced, especially given that it's a prime lens rather than a zoom.

Best ultra wide-angle lens for Nikons

If you've got a bigger budget, the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX ED can't be beaten in terms of image quality.


GO BUY IT LADY!