Comments on: There’s wide, and then there is ultra wide

By: Adam Wignall

Adam Wignall — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:22:56 +0000

well I can only really repeat what I have read regarding other ultra wides as I have never used them. The constant aperture version from what I read is about the same. I think its a little bit better wide open but that is the main reason I got the cheaper one. I don’t use this lens wide open. For landscapes you tend to want everything in focus so you will more than likely be using it at f8 plus. If you did lots of interior shots then it might be worth looking into.

As for other models the reviews indicate that the canon is very similar to the sigma with maybe slightly better sharpness but nothing significant. At least nothing that to me justified the extra cost.

As for the other brands, again from what I have read, most versions of ultra wides are about the same. All a little soft but nothing a little post processing cant fix.

By: Stratman

Stratman — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:38:07 +0000

Terrific review of the Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM ultra-wide zoom, Adam! Those are really great landscape photos that you’ve taken. I’m now looking into such lenses to cover the wide angle spectrum since my 450D’s widest lens is the EF-S 18-55mm. Not wide enough for tight people group shots indoors.

In your opinion, will the other constant aperture Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 wide angle be more advantageous for landscape shots? I’m also comparing similar offerings from Tamron, Tokina and of course – the Canon EF-S 10-20mm zoom.

Most lenses are on the soft side wide open and those that are sharp all across the frame are expensive models. I don’t intend to go FF until prices of such cameras go down to realistically affordable levels.

Thanks for posting the sweet review!

By: corina

corina — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:25:24 +0000

nice article – really like the examples of the photos