Sigma 10-20 OR Sigma 24-20 f2.8

mehfesto2

Right.
Having come into a nice bit of money, I worked out Ive enough for EITHER a sigma 10-20mm or a sigma 24-70 f2.8. My query is which would you consider more important in my situation?

Im a big fan of landscapes and portraits - and next year in college I'll be spending a lot of time at portraits, I'd imagine. I'll be spending the summer in the car looking for nice landscapes too. Which would lean me towards the 10-20.

However Im also a fan of live gig photography and other than my nifty 50, Ive feck all with a decent wide apenture.

Basically, which would be the best for me and why?



Oh, there's always the C option: save up and get a macbook pro...






(EDIT: Sorry about the thread title! *facepalm*

Arciphel

Are you shooting Canon or Nikon?

PaulieC

regardless, go for the 10-20. get the new 3.5 if you can

mehfesto2

Nikon, sorry, meant to say that too!
The 3.5 looks too pricey for me!

Mycroft H

Dont really see the point of the new f3.5 version, sure almost all wide landscapes will be shot a narrow arpetures?

Op have you considered the sigma 18-50 f2.8? Might be a better all round lens

XenonMan

I been using 10-20 Sigma for Over a year now.Its very nice lens to use indoors with flash.At first,when i bought it i was using it everywhere,indoors outdoors,action fotography.Fotos are very nice/interestings because of very vide angle.I would say go for it.

Mine actualy is for sale,Nikon fitment,PM if interested.

CabanSail

I have the Sigma 10-20 & it was what I mainly used used for shooting the Kilmainham Gaol photo's. In fact I think every image I have had selected was shot with that lens. It does well for landscapes too but is not a lens I would select for portrait work. A wide lens will give incorrect proprtions to a face, as you are shooting close & the distance to differnt features on the face is significant. If you go too long, then the facial features are flattened. In the past about 135mm (on 35mm) was called a Portrait Lens, as this is where the images look about right. This is why the Nikon 85mm F1.8 is often called a portrait lens as it's sharp, fast & has the right length.

Borderfox

I would second the 18-50 f2.8 from Sigma, had one when I was on crop cameras and it was superb

Arciphel

If you want a good wide angle on Nikon DX then I'd go for the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.

I had the Sigma 10-20mm on my old D300 and sold it to buy the Tokina and I wasn't disappointed

Fajitas!

landyman wrote: »

Dont really see the point of the new f3.5 version, sure almost all wide landscapes will be shot a narrow arpetures?

Op have you considered the sigma 18-50 f2.8? Might be a better all round lens

It's great to have the option of 3.5.

Also, a 10-20, which works out at about a 16-35 on a cropped sensor, works great for gigs, especially if you pop a flash on. It's also great for environmental portraits, which you could well be doing a lot of in college next year, depending on course/your own direction. I went down the route of a 10-20 way before any fast primes, and I loved the lens.

This is from a good few years back (And is waaaay overprocessed, looking back on it), but it gives you a good idea of what the 10-20 can do for portraits.

wersal gummage

i have the sigma 10-20 on a canon and i'm very happy with it.

however, i think sigma also do a 12-24 that is suited to both cropped and full frame sensors. I would have bought this lense at the time if i knew about it.


also - i have a 24- zoom and i find it just not wide enough for general use on a 1.6x body. although i haven't ever tried gig stuff so cant comment on that.