Author Topic: Sigma 10-20mm - for stock? (Read 9236 times)

Peter · « **on:** August 22, 2008, 04:00 »

Would you recomment this lens for stock shooting? does it produce quality images for SS to accept them?

Peter · « **Reply #1 on:** August 23, 2008, 01:57 »

nobody has it?

RH · « **Reply #2 on:** August 23, 2008, 02:54 »

Hi Peter,

don´t know if you want to use it on a Sigma, Nikon or Canon. I use the 4.0/12-24mm Tokina lens on a Nikon D2Xs. It´s absolutely amazing and much cheaper than the original Nikon lens, but it can be used only with DX-Sensor-Cameras.

Bateleur · « **Reply #3 on:** August 23, 2008, 03:14 »

I use the Sigma 17-35mm. It's not a particularly brilliant lens. It was a bit of an impulse buy and, being wise after the event, I'd probably buy the 10-20mm now. Apparently it's a much better piece of glass.

I use mine quite a bit at wide angle and stopped down to f8 or f11 it gives acceptable results for stock.

Peter · « **Reply #4 on:** August 23, 2008, 04:10 »

I would use it on Canon EOS 400D (XTi).

I have canon 28-105mm, and I am happy with it. But I want another, wider. 10-20mm would be perfect for me, and I read that Sigma 10-20 is pretty OK, not producing too much distorsions, and color aberations.

So, my question is not is it perfect lens, but is it GOOD ENOUGH for shutterstock to accept those images?

JBe · « **Reply #5 on:** August 23, 2008, 05:25 »

Best advice would be for you to try it yourself. Bring your camera down to a store that has it and ask if you can take a few shots in the store with it.
I tried one for a few days on a canon body and wasn't to impressed with sharpness and saw alot of fringing, but maybe I'm just picky. I don't know whats typical for wideangle lenses, the 10-20 was the only one I've tried out properly.

If you haven't already, you should read this. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-index.htm

The test itself is on a Nikon body but he also mentions the canon alternative.

Peter · « **Reply #6 on:** August 23, 2008, 05:31 »

I cant try it. I will buy it from ebay. (nearest store with a lot of photo equipment is 300 kilometers far away, and even there, that lens is 250$ more expensive than on ebay). So I really cant try it out firs.

tnx for link I will check it out.

Bateleur · « **Reply #7 on:** August 23, 2008, 06:09 »

The Sigma 17-35 generally has worse reviews than the 10-20, but I find it okay for Shutterstock/iStock etc.

I just avoid the maximum apertures, which is quite easy to do on a wide angle.

Stick with f8/f11 and you should be okay. Most lenses give acceptable results at those settings.

Peter · « **Reply #8 on:** August 23, 2008, 07:53 »

cool. tnx.

basti · « **Reply #9 on:** August 24, 2008, 06:20 »

Im not Canonist but tried it on 40D for a short time - built quality ok, AF ok, nice to handle. Cant judge so much on image quality, it has some purple fringing especially with maximum aperture but this is big problem of most wide angle lenses including EFS 10-22. Do not go over f11/16, then the diffraction comes into play and wideangle has huge DOF anyway. EFS 10-22 is more flare reistant but I wouldnt pay 2x more then Sigma to get 5% better lens with Canon sign... Tokina 12-24 is also pretty good.

To the optical quality question: many folks still use kit Canon 18-55 which is well bellow Sigma 10-20 so I dont think this will be a problem.

stokfoto · « **Reply #10 on:** August 24, 2008, 06:49 »

I have no experience with the sigma but if you need a wide angle zoom then I'd certainly suggest you get canon EF 17 40 f4 L it is a brilliant lens I see the price difference between the two not that obvious. ok it's not as wide as the 10-22 but I believe it will just cover your needs for stock photography one other good thing about it it doesn't have to be used on a crop factor camera so if you upgrade to a full frame body you will still be able to use that great lens with even a wider view.just my two cents

get the Canon,you won't regret!

Peter · « **Reply #11 on:** August 24, 2008, 11:47 »

I dont know, I really would like to go ultra-wide with 10mm. Tnx for the suggestion anyway.

stokfoto · « **Reply #12 on:** August 24, 2008, 15:02 »

Quote from: Peter on August 24, 2008, 11:47

I dont know, I really would like to go ultra-wide with 10mm. Tnx for the suggestion anyway.

no problem! but here is a simple calculation: 10mm ultra wide lens acts as if it was 16mm if used on a on the cropped sensor that also your camera has.if you were to upgrade to a full frame body then the only difference will be 1mm in other words you'd have a 17mm lens instead of the 16mm.besides you couldn't use the sigma on FF body.to my point of view canon is a more long term investment but obviously it's up to you.anyway good luck with your choice whichever you pick I hope you'll be happy with it.

Peter · « **Reply #13 on:** August 24, 2008, 15:17 »

yes, but that 17mm is also not 17mm on 400D, it is 27mm....

I dont think I will upgrade to a full frame camera in next 1 year (dont have enough money, saving for the new car

). If I spend on lens+camera, that is a lot of money. On the other hand I am willing to spend like 500 bucks on sigma lens only.

tnx anyway.

stokfoto · « **Reply #14 on:** August 24, 2008, 15:21 »

sure you've got a point there. Then happy shooting with your future sigma lens and please let us know your experience.

Phil · « **Reply #15 on:** August 24, 2008, 17:41 »

there is 3 tested on photozone

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

gives an idea on sample variation

a friend who doesnt shoot stock, often trims the edges (brings it back to about 12mm) because of edge softness.

comparison also here
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

although when written the new tokina 11-16mm wasn't released. I haven't looked into, but it is supposedly very very good.

Phil

Peter · « **Reply #16 on:** August 25, 2008, 01:47 »

tnx all

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #17 on:** August 25, 2008, 02:24 »

Apart from the CA the Tokina 11-16 2.8 would be the winner I would say, reading the reviews.
I have the Tokina 12-24 and you can use it for stock if you take photos in the right light. But I had photos with the CA so strong it was not correctable in a fast way. Tokina lenses seem to have quite a problem with the CA especially the 12-24.

litifeta · « **Reply #18 on:** August 25, 2008, 02:43 »

I have this lens and have used it for stock. it is a bit soft open wide at both ends.

overall i am very happy with it for my landscapes.

some examples here. one was featured on the front page of SS for a while.

basti · « **Reply #19 on:** August 25, 2008, 12:02 »

Guys, please forgot two things: at first 17-40/4 on APS-C bodies and second FF isnt the only and the ultimately best option for all kinds of work!

The 17-40 was built for film cameras and so has limited resolution, there are dozends of ppl complaining about 17-40 on crops. Its great built quality but its worth on FF, its range is also pretty bad on crop - not wide enough, not long enough, aperture also not the best... there are far better options for prime lens on crop. And remember - its 27-60 eqv., not 16-30 like Sigma = Completely different lens!

nfsphoto · « **Reply #20 on:** August 25, 2008, 12:05 »

I bought the Sigma 10-20 (for the Nikon D300) and ended up returning it after some basic tests... it was too soft and had too much CA for my taste. Bought the Nikon 14-24/2.8 (at a much higher cost, granted) and don't regret it at all, it's a fantastic lens, not as wide but much better quality.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sigma 10-20mm - for stock? (Read 9236 times)

Peter

Peter

RH

Bateleur

Peter

JBe

Peter

Bateleur

Peter

basti

stokfoto

Peter

stokfoto

Peter

stokfoto

Phil

Peter

Freezingpictures

litifeta

basti

nfsphoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors