Canon 10-22 vs. Sigma 10-20

Jaykay

Jaykay

Messages
148
Name
James Knott
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to buy a nice wide angle lens, but am torn between the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma 10-20. The Sigma seems cheaper but it seems as though the Canon 10-22 is the more popular lens.

Which lens gives you better value for money? Thanks :D
 
Canon is a bit better, but is it £100 better?

I personally have the canon 10-22, and i LOVE it. The one thing that's much better than the siggy is the build quality. The canon seems a lot more well built.Also, the USM focussing is a lot quicker, but do you need fast focussing on a UWA lens?
 
Was more than £100 difference when I was buying. Don't agree with the build quality though, I've handled both and they are both solidly built, quality units. Certainly wouldn't mark the Sigma down on that front.
 
Ant said:
Canon is a bit better, but is it £200 better?
Click to expand...

Fixed :)

I've got the Sigma & have yet to find anything wrong with it or any reason to wish I'd spent the extra £200 on the canon (y)
 
I've got the Canon 10-22mm and I love it.
I did consider the Sigma 10-20mm but I read quite a few stories where people have bought a bad copy.
In one case a guy tried several in a shop to find a good copy.
I also wanted to buy online so I could get a better price and I didn't want to risk getting a bad lens.
Sadly at the current prices the Canon is more than I would pay.
On cameraprice buster the current cheapest price is £75 more than I paid for mine.
If I was in the market for a SWA lens today, I would certainly give the Sigma more thought.
Everyone I know who has a Sigma 10-20mm is more than happy with it.
 
It's a real tricky one this. Most people buy either the Canon or the Siggy without trying the other. Both are pleased with the results. Are there really many people on here who have used both and can give an objective comparison? Not sure.

(BTW I have the Canon and luurrrvve it! Never used the Siggy!).
 
Perhaps someone like StewartR (lensesforhire) would be in a good position to judge?

As to how many people go back for second hires on either lens?

Trouble is, once you have spent the pennies on a lens, you are unlikely to then buy/try the other (at these prices). When hiring a lens, you can just as easily hire the other one next time.
 
I've tried both, I found the Canon sharper across the whole range than the Sigma, but the Canon is very, very sharp.

I bought the Canon as it definately had the edge on IQ especially looking at 100% crops, and I simply wanted the best UWA I could get, which for a cropped sensor Canon is the 10-22. Was it worth the extra?? All I know is that having used both, if I bought the Siggy (which was still very very good) I'd still want the Canon :)

That said, the Sigma is exceptional value for money!
 
Ive just ordered the siggy 10-20mm, just waiting for it to arrive, i heard alot of good things about the siggy and for me that and the price difference is what made me choose it, had a go in jessops with it, build quality is awesome, id definatley opt for the siggy and spend your pennies you saved from the canon on something else worthwhile (y)(y)
 
I bought my sigma a couple of years ago from the amazing B&H in NewYork. They have 50 assistants behind the DSLR counter alone!

I went in to buy the Canon but the bloke behind the counter talked me into buying the Sigma despite the fact that it was cheaper. He reckoned better optics, better coatings, and hood included. I have heard the build quality critisism before, but it seems Ok to me and I have got an L lens to compare it too.
 
I bought the sigma, didn't think it was sharp so took it back and got the canon instead - that lens is sharp as hell. Don't regret paying the extra. More regret fiddlng around in the first place thinking I could go for the cheaper option.
 
tlr said:
I bought my sigma a couple of years ago from the amazing B&H in NewYork. They have 50 assistants behind the DSLR counter alone!

I went in to buy the Canon but the bloke behind the counter talked me into buying the Sigma despite the fact that it was cheaper. He reckoned better optics, better coatings, and hood included. I have heard the build quality critisism before, but it seems Ok to me and I have got an L lens to compare it too.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, not sure I'd side with the salesman on that one!! The Sigma doesnt have better optics - the Canon 10-22 uses L glass (according to these amongst others)

http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/index.php?p=325;
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_10-22_review.html;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_10-22mm_lens)

...which is probably why it costs about 30% more and accounts for the sharpness. I've never heard of a soft 10-22!!
 
I have recently bought a used canon 10-22. I didn't get a chance to try it out yet but the build quality is great especially compared to kit lens :D

I went with canon because of the few bad reviews with some bad copies of sigma and didn't want to take the risk. I also bought it used so the price difference wasn't that great.
 
swag72 said:
I bought the sigma, didn't think it was sharp so took it back and got the canon instead - that lens is sharp as hell. Don't regret paying the extra. More regret fiddlng around in the first place thinking I could go for the cheaper option.
Click to expand...

odd jim said:
I've tried both, I found the Canon sharper across the whole range than the Sigma, but the Canon is very, very sharp.

I bought the Canon as it definately had the edge on IQ especially looking at 100% crops, and I simply wanted the best UWA I could get, which for a cropped sensor Canon is the 10-22. Was it worth the extra?? All I know is that having used both, if I bought the Siggy (which was still very very good) I'd still want the Canon :)

That said, the Sigma is exceptional value for money!
Click to expand...

Have to agree with both of these comments, I've owned both, I still own one and rate it miles above the Sigma.
 
Looked at the Tokina 12-24? Optics of the Canon (almost), faster, better built and still the same price as the Sigma. With the added benefit of not having to worry about a dud when ordering online. :)

I tried all three in a shop before getting mine and IMO the Tokina is the best built (by far), and the Canon has the better IQ (only just from the Tokina, and reasonable amount more than the Sigma). I went for the Tokina as there wasn't much in it from the Canon, but it was around £200 cheaper.
 
Amp34 said:
Looked at the Tokina 12-24? Optics of the Canon (almost), faster, better built and still the same price as the Sigma. With the added benefit of not having to worry about a dud when ordering online. :)

I tried all three in a shop before getting mine and IMO the Tokina is the best built (by far), and the Canon has the better IQ (only just from the Tokina, and reasonable amount more than the Sigma). I went for the Tokina as there wasn't much in it from the Canon, but it was around £200 cheaper.
Click to expand...

Another vore for the Tokina 12-24 - only had mine a few weeks, but loving it. I have not tried the Canon, but I have used the Sigma. TBH you will always get canon fans and owner preference. From what I have read there is little in it, and it will always fall down to budget. However unlike most L glass vs sigma etc, I think in the UWA camp there really is only marginally differences. Just my thoughts.
 
If I could have got a Sigma that was not decentred (tried 3, all faulty) I would have been happy with it. As it stands, I went for the Canon in the end out of exasperation and am happy with that. In the real world, there is very little to chose between the two in terms of image quality. Only when pixel peeping do things fall slightly in favour of the Canon (when compared to the good side of the Sigma!), but in my experience it is only slight and probably not worth the extra cash if you can get a good Sigma
 
To me, I like the build & handling of the sigma, but sheer number of soft copies, out of centre (one corner intrudes into the frame all the time), focus motor problems (and lack of replacement by distributor/sigma) puts me off.

I want the 10-22, similar build quality, more accurate, less problematic & quieter focus, yes I baulk at the cost (especially now) but you are getting the next grade up of glass, in a cheaper body (no environmental seals etc).
IF you want a half way house the tokina 12-24 is as sharp, if not sharper than the canon across the range (thoguh it only goes down to 12mm, not so much a problem on DX's but on Aps-C canons its restrictive), much better focusing than most (I like it and it takes a lot to please me lol), build quality is bordering on bulletproof (though it is larger & much heavier than sigma/canon/tamron). also seen 5x copies of NEW 12-24's on fleabay from a shop, UK warrenty £299, damn nearly bought one.

also look at the tamron 10-24, seen new UK warrenty ones floating about for £330-340 mark, some reviews do & some don't rate them, seems about as hit and miss with build quality as the sigmas :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top