APS-C Wide angle choice?

Mark Anthony · 22 Dec 2010

I was all set to get the Canon 10-22 then started reading reviews of the newer Siggy version and some say it's even better than the Canon, anyone on here used both, or if not, anyone that can make the Siggy sing and dance to reassure i don't need to spend £200 more on the Canon equivalent?

ash39 · 22 Dec 2010

Well, I have the Sigma and I can't fault it. What camera you got?

Some shots with it:

holty · 22 Dec 2010

i also have the siggy great lens for the money :clap:

Mark Anthony · 22 Dec 2010

I use a 50D, i just heard so many bad things about the old Sigma that it put me off a bit.

Alastair · 22 Dec 2010

The older Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 has generally come out better in the reviews I've read compared to the newer f/3.5. It's a great lens for the money.

ash39 · 22 Dec 2010

Should go nicely on a 50D. Mine is the 4-5.6, don't really need 3.5 when you're shooting that wide. Often it's on a tripod anyway.

jpw · 22 Dec 2010

The Sigma 10-20mm (f4-5.6) is my most-missed lens since moving to FX, loved the images I got with it.

mrbez · 22 Dec 2010

I have also just recently picked up the Sigma 10-20.

I love it.

Mark Anthony · 22 Dec 2010

Alastair said:
The older Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 has generally come out better in the reviews I've read compared to the newer f/3.5. It's a great lens for the money.

Now i'm even more confused, the ones i've read have slammed the older one and said the newer is finished better and less hit and miss.

jpw · 22 Dec 2010

Don't forget the filter size of the f3.5 one - 82mm vs 77mm of the old one, 82mm filters are not cheap!

ash39 · 22 Dec 2010

Can you even put standard filters on one? The lens glass sticks out in the middle ..

33L · 23 Dec 2010

you can, all UWA have a concave shaped lens to some degree, the only problem is slight vignetting with thicker fitlers and polorisers can give some oddeffects with such wide angles.

As far as i know its the nikon 12-24 that cant accept filters easily and i think there is a sigma 12-24 with the same issue.

cw318is · 23 Dec 2010

I've got the Tamron and the Sigma f3.5, Sigma all the way. The Tamron is OK, but the Sigma is great. Copy I have is L quality sharp and has a much smoother focus. The Tamron since new always has been a bit pepperpot and barrells a bit more.

If you get a good example then you can save a bit over a Canon one which is going to be about equal on performance.

hollis_f · 23 Dec 2010

My friends Sigma 10-20 was really bad - out of focus on one side. I've got the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 11-16 and would recommend either.

Mark Anthony · 23 Dec 2010

Was it the old or the new sigma though hollisf, I've heard that a lot about the older version but heard said the newer version has all the flaws ironed out.

squishy · 23 Dec 2010

Its the new sigma 8-16mm that doesn't take filters. Though I'd imagine Lee filters will come up with something sometime, they have for the nikkor 14-24 f/2.8.