Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM vs Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM

[jasony8]

These two Sigma wide angle telephoto lens are very attractive. I am looking at getting one of these for landscape photography. Just want to get some comments and feedback on what guys think of each one.

Do you think that there is a significant difference between the two?
Any of you guys have personal experience with either of these lens?
Another comments/feedback on Sigma built lenses?

8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM - Wide Angle Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com
10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM - Wide Angle Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

Thanks for looking !

[OsmosisStudios]

The difference between 10 and 8mm (16 and 13mm) is pretty vast, even if the numbers arent that far away.

The 8-16 is brand new, and hasnt hit the market hit (it was only announced a few weeks ago), so I wouldnt expect there to be many if any reviews for it.

That being said: the 10-20 comes in two versions: a f/4.5-5.6 and an f/3.5. THe former is the better of the two.

[jasony8]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

The difference between 10 and 8mm (16 and 13mm) is pretty vast, even if the numbers arent that far away.

The 8-16 is brand new, and hasnt hit the market hit (it was only announced a few weeks ago), so I wouldnt expect there to be many if any reviews for it.

That being said: the 10-20 comes in two versions: a f/4.5-5.6 and an f/3.5. THe former is the better of the two.

You reckon that if I was to get one of them . .should i wait for the 8-16mm or the 10-20mm? I have read quite a few reviews on both of them, they received very positive feedback
The constant f/3.5 should be better right?

[OsmosisStudios]

You'd think the constant f/3.5 would be better: its not as sharp and not as contrasty. If you need a fast lens, though, get the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. The variable aperture sigma is actually better.

I havent seen any reviews of the 8-16: only previews.

[sk66]

I had the sigma 10-20 variable and liked it quite a bit. I didn't find it "slow" even though the aperture is not as wide.

That said, a wide angle is a pretty specialized lens and only works well in special situations...general landscape (scenery) isn't one of them IMO.

[jasony8]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

You'd think the constant f/3.5 would be better: its not as sharp and not as contrasty. If you need a fast lens, though, get the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. The variable aperture sigma is actually better.

I havent seen any reviews of the 8-16: only previews.

Wow, I thought that the constant f/3.5 would have been better Thanks for letting me know.
I will look into doing some readings on the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. But I think the Sigma 10-30 f/4 -f/5.6 would be relatively quick enough though. Do you own any of these lens? Any images you can probably show me?

Thank you so much for your feedback!

[jasony8]

Originally Posted by sk66

I had the sigma 10-20 variable and liked it quite a bit. I didn't find it "slow" even though the aperture is not as wide.

That said, a wide angle is a pretty specialized lens and only works well in special situations...general landscape (scenery) isn't one of them IMO.

Any good photo samples you can maybe show me?
I thought that this wide angle lens would be a good for taking landscapes, what do you reckon it is best for? What 'special situations'?

Thanks for your feedback!

[nicled]

i've had the f4 sigma 10-20mm and its very sharp. just great for landscapes.

[ddr]

most crop users pick the canon 10-22 for outdoor stuff because of its awesome flare control, and the tokina 11-16 for indoor/available light stuff

make sure you try out the sigma stuff at the store you're buying it from because their QC is kinda loose

[sk66]

Originally Posted by jasony8

Any good photo samples you can maybe show me?
I thought that this wide angle lens would be a good for taking landscapes, what do you reckon it is best for? What 'special situations'?

Thanks for your feedback!

Here's an example of what I use a wide angle for...


I took this just inches from the bottom step.

The great thing with a wide angle is it catches a huge FOV. The negative is it can distort things and in scenery shots everything becomes small. If I were to do wide scenics, I'd prefer to stitch together several "normal" shots.