Sigma 10-20: how sharp is it suppose to be? & Is the 16-85 VR an alternative to ultra-wides?

[shuo_zhao]

Roman, I already have the 24-70 2.8 Nikkor.

[steve_c.5]

(For Martin Duchesne above) I've owned three of the Sigma 10-20's. The first one I crossthreaded at a wedding one time, and it never worked right after. I sent it in to be repaired. Bought another simultaneously, and it was soft on the left side, like yours. I sent it in, sold the first on Ebay, and Sigma sent me a third that was sharp all the way across.

 

You just got a bad one. No excuse for that, it just happens.

 

I find that I have to run a little sharpening action on every shot taken with it, but the payoff is the wide angle range with no bowing of straight lines. I use it at receptions a lot for dramatic dancing shots, at around f7 to f9, with an off-camera flash and GF Lightshpere. I use it for large group shots, and of course, landscape shots.

 

If they made this lens in f2.8 for my camera, I'd be in heaven! Unfortunately, only Nikon and Canon get the f2.8 Tokina superwide, which I'd love to try.

[Phil_Light]

I had the Sigma 10-20mm as well. Found that the lenses are hit and miss in terms of sharpness edge-to-edge at least wide open. Mine wasn't too bad but sold it in favor of the Tokina 12-24mm which seems to be razor sharp even at the edges. I'm glad I made the buy-in to the Tokina. Been very happy with the results. Here's a shot with the Sigma 10-20mm and you can see some of the softness on the right side even at f/8.

[Rene11664880918]

Shuo... I am sure your 24-70 (1,700 USD) is much sharper than the 500 USD Sigma 10-20, MOST OF THE TIME! If you

compare them between 10 to 20 mm, I'll bet anything that the Sigma is sharper! Rene'

[jore_puusa]

I have a question.

For what reason do You all use cameras? Taking pictures or watching sharpness?

Could You believe that Bob Capa and David Cheymour had this kind of conversation?

Did Diane Arbus ask around about bokeh? How about Josef Koudelka and gypsies, did he shoot the pictures or moan about

sharpness. I�ve been photographing war for 15 years. Never heard a pro talk about cameras or lenses.

[shuo_zhao]

This is not exactly about the philosophy of photography; it's instead about how to get the most out of my limited funding (and relative sharpness happens to be one of the topics discussed). Despite the fact that obviously this is not my favorite topic, I must say that I want to make relatively educated decisions when I give away my $$. If you're persuing your dream, glory, or a higher degree of professionalism, I suppose you really don't need to talk about cameras and lenses. But unfortunately, my situation is more desperate than that.

 

Do anyone of you have experiences w/ the 16-85? Please let me know how well it performs at 16mm-20mm. Thanks.

[shuo_zhao]

Bytheway, I don't think we should mention the 24-70 2.8 in comparison to the 10-20 anymore. But without expecting the 10-20 to be as sharp as a $1700 pro nikkor, I have think I have every reason to expect it to be as sharp as the 18-70 nikkor. That would be a good way to compare it, because most reviews suggest that the 16-85 is sharper.

[dave_shilling__sacramento_]

With regards to your question of how sharp it is supposed to be... generally ultrawides tend to be soft at the edges, and sharper towards the middle. I think that the question of how you intend to use the lens is a valid one. But aside from that, it sounds like you have already narrowed down the options within your price range. Just go to a lens rental shop and tell them you want to rent a lens... try the other one out, and you will have your answer. I suppose you get what you pay for. FWIW, the 17-55 2.8 is pretty sharp. Maybe sell the the 24-70?

[michael mccann]

My 10-20 Sigma is extremely sharp. End of the story for me.

[joemikel1]

Well I?d been in photography for only a year, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Technical issues are really important. A better quality lens can give you much, but for me, that 10 mm on my sigma

10-20 give me a chance to get compositions like the next and others in my photostream and that?s definitly enought

for my 350$

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7423464-sm.jpg">

[petespositives]

Hi!

 

I've used the Sigma 10-20 for just over 18 months now on my Nikon D80 and I have only one grumble about it... It doesn't bounce well when dropped from a rucksack. Even after repair it has provided, for my taste and purposes, happy photographs in situations where I couldn't afford anything else that might come close. I have had no problems with sharpness and am developing the skill to correct distortion in CS3, if it ever proves necessary for the sake of an image.

 

I can understand how people can become concerned about things like this but, for me, it's one of my favourite and most reliable tools in the box.

 

Best wishes to you all!

 

Pete :)

[craig_gillette]

Keep in mind that "tilt" of straight objects like buildings and power and bridge towers will result from not having the camera level to the horizon or perpendicular to the flat front surfaces. The wider the lens, the more obvious this will be, but a Tokina 12-24 at 16mm and a Sigma 10-20 at 16mm and any other lens will show the same results (not including fish eyes). It may be that there will be individual lens distortions that are different but wide angle tilt isn't going to be substantially different from lens to lens at a given angle off vertical/horizontal/perpendicular and focal length.

[vincent_stanford]

I have one that is very sharp even at the edges. But then I tend to use it on a tripod and stopped down hard.

Reports are that at 10mm f4 it is a little soft at the edges, but I don't shoot landscapes at f4 so I don't have

the experience with that. A friend of mine has the Nikkor 12-24 DX and we have gone out together and shot the

same scenes. My copy of the Sigma shows less CA than his copy of the Nikkor. That does not prove the breeds are

consistently that way, but he is thinking of getting a copy of the Sigma 10-20 because of it. Reputable camera

stores will let you try a swap to see if your copy is worse than the usual. I would try getting another copy for

a test shoot and see how it is. Still, it is a workhorse lens for me. Might be a thing where you have to

balance a bit of higher ISO noise against the softness in the corners.

 

Best of luck.

[Kent Shafer]

Shuo, the 16-85 seems pretty expensive for the little extra range it would add over the excellent 24-70. If it were me, I

would (in fact did) get the Nikkor 12-24 for not too much more. Or maybe the Tokina 12-24 for somewhat less.<p>

 

Since you are especially interested in the 16mm length, here are is a test image from the Nikkor 12-24 at 16mm - f/4

and f/8.<p>

 

D300, tripod, mirror lockup, cable release, focused on fence. Moderate sharpening in CS3 (Smart Sharpen: lens blur,

radius 1.0, amount 250). It looks reasonably sharp to me.<p>

 

Good luck,<br>

Kent<div></div>

[Kent Shafer]

Center crop<div></div>

[Kent Shafer]

Edge crop<div></div>

[shuo_zhao]

First of all, I must thank all of you for contributing your opinions; especially Kent with the sample images.

 

We should narrow things down to make the decision simpler. By that, I mean we should just talk about the performance (optical quality) of the lenses, instead of the things that are unavoidably there (such as the "tilting", or the fact that the 24-70 is sharper).

 

Maybe I got a bad sample of the lens, maybe everyone just happen to have different standards when it comes to sharpness.