Sigma 10-20 4-5.6mm vs Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5mm lens

[Nathaniel]

A young lad from my church youth club has asked my advise on the above two lenses. As I have the Sigma lens, I don't wish to give a biased opinion. If any exerperienced members in the forum have got these lenses or have used them before, please give me your views which I can pass on.

[MX5]

Re: Sigma 10-20 4-5.6mm vs Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5mm lens

Nat ... I just have the 10-20 (an early 'mark 1') and am very happy with it when I use it ... but I don't use it very often (so you really need to decide if you need something so w-i-d-e with it's potential to distort). Anyway take a look at DPreviews views:

Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 10-24

[Woolley]

Re: Sigma 10-20 4-5.6mm vs Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5mm lens

I evaluated both of these lenses when I was looking for a wide lens. Prior to settling on the Canon (partly because I could get it cheaper from Australia courtesy of friends coming to visit). Of the two I had decided the Sigma seemed to be the better choice despite the Tamron having the better apertures.

I was also very tempted by the Tokina alternative. They now offer two alternatives, the 10-17 which is a fish-eye or the 11-16 which is a fixed f/2.8. Not sure you'd need that wide an aperture for this range, but it does make for a bright viewfinder and the possibility of some interesting low-light work - definitely worth considering.

[Nathaniel]

Re: Sigma 10-20 4-5.6mm vs Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5mm lens

Thank you all for your good advice. Since this is not for my use but for a young youth club member whose dad is able to fork out the dosh. On a cropped camera body, the wide angle would start from around 16mm, which I think is good enough, without getting into the fish eye mode,which I personally don't like.Wooley, is the Tokina 11-16 fixed 2.8 a better buy? The problem is I don't wish to advise and then find that I get the "flak"- most youngsters in my church youth club think that my word and opinion is final and "magic"! The Canon lens is out on account of the price.

MX5, the tamron at 24mm gives a better and larger image of the tower bridge compared to the sigma at it's maximum of 20mm- without the wide angle distortion. I am therefore wondering whether this lad is better off with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 rather than going in for the 10-24mm Tamron or the Sigma.

I am sometimes put into awkward corners!!!!!

[Woolley]

Re: Sigma 10-20 4-5.6mm vs Tamron 10-24mm 3.5-4.5mm lens

The fixed, wide aperture sounds useful, but it's another £100 so if it's not needed then probably not. For a little less Sigma now have an f/3.5 fixed aperture.

However, since he's asked about those two particular lenses he's presumably sure about the focal length he's after which would rule out the 17-50. Of the two I had concluded the Sigma was the better choice for me from reviews and a brief test in a shop, and then found I could get the Canon for around £30 more. At this length I don't find the variable aperture (3.5-4.5 on mine) significant as it's usually out at f/8 or more anyway.