Sigma 10-20mm or 15mm

[The111 1]

I have Canon 10-22mm but I almost always use it at 15 or 16mm in freefall. Other range is nice for non freefall shots.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[KennyP 0]

I also have the cannon 10-22 and keep it on 15 or 16mm on almost all freefalls. The major advantage to the zoom is after you land, you can zoom out to 22mm as the tandem lands. For me that justifies the extra cost and weight. It also makes a pretty good walk around lens.

[jeiber 0]

Quote

Two of these shots were taken of me doing a tandem with a 15mm lens. It works really well with a .3 wide angle lens video.

That's the combination I use for tandems, and works really well, since I like getting in close and interacting the the tandem pair.

Good for freeflying too, but as far as everything else (canopy, rw, swooping, etc.), that's just too wide, IMHO.

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[Fast 0]

Quote

But dont you think you would have covered that cleavage much better with a 10mm ?

It is a difficult decision...

Most of those who have 15mm seem to say its the way to go, but Jeff who has a 10-22 and a canon 15mm says he dont use the 15mm on Freefall at all... I think that is a big issue here. My point being that most honest opinions you get from those who have the opportunity to choose and have used them both...

Now anyone who has both would prefer the 15mm ?

Dunno. I had the opportunity to buy either and went with the 15mm sigma. I guess part of that is because I think prime lenses take better pictures. I think it sticks out a little less and weighs a little less too. I also don't have to tape down a focal length. I can't accidentally jump with it at the wrong focal length. I honestly don't do much that I would need wider than 15 and I have other lenses for on the ground.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[The111 1]

Quote

I also have the cannon 10-22 and keep it on 15 or 16mm on almost all freefalls. The major advantage to the zoom is after you land, you can zoom out to 22mm as the tandem lands. For me that justifies the extra cost and weight.

I've said it once in this thread (and in several others) and I'll say it again... the Canon 10-22mm is not heavy. It's big, for sure, but compared to dozens of other lenses, even fixed lenses, it's fairly light. The Sigma 15mm is one of the only lighter ones and even that is only by a tiny bit.

Canon 10-22mm : 13.6oz
Sigma 10-22mm : 16.6oz
Sigma 15mm : 13oz
Tokina 10-17mm : 12.3oz
Tokina 12-24mm : 19.2oz
Tamron 11-18mm : 13.2oz
Sigma 18-50mm : 15.9oz

It is a bit pricey, but I wish people would stop calling it heavy.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 1]

Quote

I would really appreciate some example photos with these lenses using a 1.6x censor.

Every single photo on my website after November 2006 was taken with Canon 10-22mm on 350D.

Also go to www.photozone.de and read lens reviews, complex tests, and see sample pics there. Unfortunately they do not test the Sigma 15mm. The Canon 10-22mm is a very unique lens in that it has very little distortion across the entire zoom range. Most other zoom wide angles either have distortion at one end or the other. A 10mm focal length with no fisheye effect is really cool, I think. Unless of course, you want fisheye.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[theskydiveguy 0]

I shoot my tandems at 10 and my landings at 10 taped down.. I don't zoom at all. I suppose if they ever built a 10 prime I would buy it too!

Here is a landing shot taken a 10MM.. Don't your tandem masters have any sort of accuracy?

~Jeff

[Fast 0]

Quote

Don't your tandem masters have any sort of accuracy?

~Jeff

Who said anything about them not having accuracy? I shoot all pictures for tandems with my 15mm and it works great.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[theskydiveguy 0]

Quote

I also have the cannon 10-22 and keep it on 15 or 16mm on almost all freefalls. The major advantage to the zoom is after you land, you can zoom out to 22mm as the tandem lands. For me that justifies the extra cost and weight. It also makes a pretty good walk around lens.

He did..

~Jeff

[The111 1]

Quote

Quote

I also have the cannon 10-22 and keep it on 15 or 16mm on almost all freefalls. The major advantage to the zoom is after you land, you can zoom out to 22mm as the tandem lands. For me that justifies the extra cost and weight. It also makes a pretty good walk around lens.

He did..

~Jeff

22mm is still pretty wide. Using 22mm to shoot a landing does not mean the person wasn't accurate... it just means you don't have to be in their face, and you get a narrower FOV in your photo, which IMO looks better on landing shots.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[KennyP 0]

Quote

Quote

I also have the cannon 10-22 and keep it on 15 or 16mm on almost all freefalls. The major advantage to the zoom is after you land, you can zoom out to 22mm as the tandem lands. For me that justifies the extra cost and weight. It also makes a pretty good walk around lens.

He did..

~Jeff

Actually one of my TI's is on the national accuracy team. So please don't make assumptions.
If a 10mm works for you and makes you happy...cool. I prefer the flexabilty of a 10-22mm.

I think The111 said it rather well.

[BMFin 0]

Thanks for the help so far...

But isnt there anyone with a 10-20 sigma ?

It seems to be a bit slower than the canon 10-22 and slower than the 15mm ..

What I would like to hear is how it performes on in low light weather and sunsets etc...

[PharmerPhil 0]

Quote

I've said it once in this thread (and in several others) and I'll say it again... the Canon 10-22mm is not heavy. It's big, for sure, but compared to dozens of other lenses, even fixed lenses, it's fairly light. The Sigma 15mm is one of the only lighter ones and even that is only by a tiny bit

Personnaly I use the Canon 15mm fixed for lots of shots. It is lighter than all the lenses you listed (11.7oz.), and smaller is definitely an issue if you have to share space with a video camera. The Canon 15mm is lighter and smaller (in both diameter and length) than the Sigma 15mm lens. Of course the Canon 18-55mm is even lighter still (though slightly larger). And while I have never jumped one, I used to use one on the ground a fair amount, and lots of jumpers are happy with it.

[The111 1]

Fisheye? I still like the non-distortion of my 10-22mm.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[PharmerPhil 0]

I agree on the "fisheye" issue (kinda like using too much reverb on all your music). But there are many instances where it isn't objectionable. Shooting down on an RW jump really doesn't reveal the fisheye distortion much. It is much different when shooting things with a horizon (like tandems). But even then, the crop factor of many DSLRs reduces the distortion alot.

And yeah, if you jump a side mount, many times there isn't a problem with the video "seeing" the SLR lens. But it can be a big problem with many top-mounts.

[The111 1]

Quote

And yeah, if you jump a side mount, many times there isn't a problem with the video "seeing" the SLR lens. But it can be a big problem with many top-mounts.

No side mount here.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[Cyrus79 0]

Here's a couple shots of me exiting a tandem from a Sigma 10-20. I really like this lense and would buy it in a second if it wasn't so heavy. I'm currently still using the kit 18-55 canon, but am also looking to get a wider lense, without going too heavy.

[lilchief 1]

I'm bumping up this thread to keep number of threads to a minimum
----------
If you're looking for info about Sigma 15mm, type in "Sigma 15mm" in the search bar and almost all your questions will be answered.
---------

So here is what I'm actually wondering about
I've got a Sigma 10-20 that I almost always keep on 10mm. I've looked at the Sigma 15mm and it seems to have a potential(I've read all info I found here on DZ.com). I mostly take pictures of tandems, but also other different stuff. It will be my skydiving work lens.


Would you think that I'd benefit a change from Sigma 10-20 to a Sigma 15mm?



I've made this overview:

Sigma 10-20mm:

pros: zoom ability, doesn't bend the horizon as much, UV filter may be installed
Cons: heavy, slow(starts with f4), prime lenses are better then zoom lenses (image quality)

Sigma 15mm

pros: fast(f2.8), light, just need to tape one ring, shorter
cons: no zoom=less flexibility, no UV filter possibility = less protection)

correct me if I've let out anything...

"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." - Da Vinci
www.lilchief.no

[Cashmanimal 0]

Sigma 15mm can use gel filters that you can buy or cut to fit...

It's all fun and until someone loses an eye... then it's just a game to find the eye

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Sigma 15mm can use gel filters that you can buy or cut to fit...

Those filters fit at the rear end of the lens. Not very protective.

Dave

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Those filters fit at the rear end of the lens. Not very protective.

Filters will add lens flare. Personally I wouldnt use filters unless I need to use one for a specific reason.

[Cashmanimal 0]

Touche.... should read a little closer

It's all fun and until someone loses an eye... then it's just a game to find the eye

[BMFin 0]

This shows well how problematic lens flare can get.

Great pictures, but almost all of them have annoying lens flare.

[pilotdave 0]

That's the exact type of lens flare I got with a cheap canon UV filter (see below spiderman's chest strap). When I realized it was the culprit, I upgraded to a B+W multi-coated UV filter and the problem went away. But that filter is pretty pricey in 77mm size, so I didn't get one for my 10-22. No regrets so far... but I haven't dropped that one. Yet.

Dave

[BMFin 0]

Yes, there are differences on different filters.

Not very big differences though. I very much suspect you would have had lens flare in that exact situation with some other filter also.

Here is a test where different (chep/expensive, coated/non-coated, circular polarizer and other) filters are tested in terms of lens flare.

The site is in finnish, but the first pic is without filter and the rest are with different filters. It demonstrates well, how filters (all those that were tested) add lens flare, and therefore compromise the picture quality. The multicoated ones did yield less noticable lens flare however.