Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG - Reviews

(3.6)

5 reviews

Info

Reviewbucket.co.uk scanned the internet for Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG reviews.
You can find all Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG reviews and ratings on this page.

Read the reviews.

Analysis

For Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG, 5 customer reviews collected from 1 e-commerce sites, and the average score is 3.6.

Detailed seller stats;
Amazon has 5 customer reviews and the average score is 3.6. Go to this seller.

Detail

Click to list all products in this category.

Similar Items

16.9.2012

I already own and use a heck of a lot Nikon's pro 17-35mm D lens, which is only 1.5 stops slower and whose quality is not even bettered by Nikon's own 20mm f2.8 D. So, why should I bother with this Sigma?Firstly, the 17-35mm has already been repaired/refurbished once and is old. And very heavy. I'm semi-pro and where I've had a kit that extends down to my superb 24-70mm f2.8 (another Sigma, the HSM model), I used to slip in my pocket an even older Tamron 17mm f3.5, which uses the old adaptall 2 system, and is manual focus only. A replacement with a newer, better one than mine is up to £200. The quality of the Tamron is rubbish wider than f5.6, but then on, is as good as the Nikkor 17-35mm.So,this Sigma 20mm f1.8, which I bought secondhand for around half the normal new price is also a bit rubbish at f1.8, particularly contrast. By f2.8 it's better and f4 is good (see my image at the top of the Amazon page) and from then on, is contrasty and sharp, not better than the 17-35mm, but then, almost nothing else is! Another image I've added was taken on DX Nikon D7000 handheld at night, at f1.8. On the DX, it's equivalent to a 30mm f1.8; still a very useful spec.Unlike the lead-weight of my all metal tank-proof 17-35, the Sigma is plastic, apart from the metal mount and glass elements, of course. This makes it a lot lighter, though its dimensions are a lot bigger than my little Tamron 17mm f3.5. The 20mm f1.8 takes giant 82mm filters, which are costly and its decent lenshood has some effect reducing stray light and flare, but with that wide frontal area it is rather prone to ghosting and the multicoating is in another, lower league than the Nikon. However, careful placing of the sun behind trees and such and it does OK and stopping down helps, too.The auto-focussing is good and fairly quiet and accurate (some Sigma's back-focus, but mine's fine) but it's too old to include their hypersonic drive system (HSM). Having said that, the barrel does not rotate and the lens elements are light so they don't need much time or energy to focus from infinity through to the minimum 0.2m. This might seem a gimmick, but is great for environmental portraits - a single flower in a wide landscape, for example. One can get so close, in fact, that the petal-shaped lenshood often casts a shadow on the subject! The lens also uses a rather odd push/pull M/F to A/F mechanism, which takes some getting used to but is in effect no worse than a fiddly button somewhere. At least this falls easily to hand, unlike those switches on other lenses.As my attached image of the full-frame daylit building shows, barrel distortion is low, to the point of it not being noticeable, making it a good choice for architecture. Photoshop CS distortion filters include settings for this lens and when employed, has little effect, showing the quality of the original. I expected much worse vignetting from this lens, especially at very wide apertures and at its FX 92 degrees angle of view, though I haven't tested it yet but it's not obvious in the viewfinder, which again, is a pleasant surprise.My main uses will be for band and music festival photography, where I want an occasional ultrawideangle but want a lighter kit load. It would be asking too much to ask it to perform superbly at f1.8, but it could get you an image at least and which might sharpen up after. The fact that it's fully usuable for professional use from f3.5/f4 is encouraging and I look forward to using it regularly.