Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20?

Mikehamilton

Mikehamilton

Messages
1,600
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

Im going to be buying a wide angle lens for my 400D.

I know the sigma can be a little soft at times, but are the differences that noticable? i dont mind paying full whack for the canon.

or would i be better off with the sigma? soory for the noobish question.

Mike
 
And where does the Tokina 12-24 fit in to the mix ?

There are two versions of the Sigma, one is f4.5-5.6, the other f3.5 constant.

I have seen and read criticism of the canon lens with regards to distortion at the wide end? I think its generally accepted it has the best IQ though ?

I know both the 12-14 and 11-16 Tokinas have had flare problems in sunlight but the v2 of the 12-24 is meant to fix this - anyone got any experience ?

Opinions on the sigma (f4.5-5.6 version) seems to be mixed - some have got rid of it for the canon, others say its just as good as the canon ?
Main complaints seem to be lack of sharpness around the edges of the image ?
It seems that the sigmas quality vary from copy to copy.

Interested cos I am looking at UWAs too.. I think the "order" so to speak is:
Canon
Tokina
Sigma
Tamron
?
 
Most obviously Canon has 2mm extra at the long end and a max appature of 3.5-4.5 rather than 4-5.6. Going from reviews both have similar sharpness at 10mm with the Canon having slightly better boarders at the long end of the range.

Really I'd say the main thing to consider is how much you'll use that long end.
 
im looking in to getting more in to my landscape photography, so its going to basically stay mostly at 10mm, so the more sharpness the better. i know the sigma is good (the 3.5) but from reviews its soft at the edges wide open. but again would i be better with the canon 10-22 on my 400D or, get a sigma and a second had 40D?
 
10 - 22 is better than any of the competition when it comes to UWA's unless you need F2.8.
 
I've the sigma 10-20mm and get great results with it and am very pleased it. For the amount of times I use it, it wasn't worth the extra money for the Canon, but if money wasn't an issue, I'd choose the Canon
 
Craft said:
And where does the Tokina 12-24 fit in to the mix ?

There are two versions of the Sigma, one is f4.5-5.6, the other f3.5 constant.

I have seen and read criticism of the canon lens with regards to distortion at the wide end? I think its generally accepted it has the best IQ though ?

I know both the 12-14 and 11-16 Tokinas have had flare problems in sunlight but the v2 of the 12-24 is meant to fix this - anyone got any experience ?

Opinions on the sigma (f4.5-5.6 version) seems to be mixed - some have got rid of it for the canon, others say its just as good as the canon ?
Main complaints seem to be lack of sharpness around the edges of the image ?
It seems that the sigmas quality vary from copy to copy.

Interested cos I am looking at UWAs too.. I think the "order" so to speak is:
Canon
Tokina
Sigma
Tamron
?
Click to expand...

It's not distortion, that's a common misconception.

It's simply the extreme angle of view. Your own eyes would do the same if they had that much of a sideways field of view.

The Canon definitely has the edge over it's competitors. However, the Sigma and Tokina alternatives are both excellent lenses... But in relation to the Sigma, the constant f/3.5 is not really worth paying extra over the f/4.5 as optically there is t anything in it and you wouldnt really want to shoot wide open with a UWA anyway.

On a side note, this has been covered plenty of times before, it's worth utilising the search facility. I'm not being anal, it's just that you'll find everything you're asking without having to wait for people to post!
 
Last edited:
Mikehamilton said:
im looking in to getting more in to my landscape photography, so its going to basically stay mostly at 10mm, so the more sharpness the better. i know the sigma is good (the 3.5) but from reviews its soft at the edges wide open. but again would i be better with the canon 10-22 on my 400D or, get a sigma and a second had 40D?
Click to expand...

The 10-20 3.5 Sigma(rather than the older 4-5.6 model) really isnt very popular, as you say its boarder are very soft wide open, the max appature isnt that much of an advantage over the Canon 10-22 plus its a big chuck of a lens that takes 82mm filters. If you want a large max appature then personally I'd go with the Tokina 11-16.

As Jim said though I'd think about whether that large max appature is important to you or not. Yes ultrawide lenses have a very deep depth of field but alot of the time the best shots are taken when your very close to part of your subject so you still need to stop down. Personally when I use my 10-22 wide open its normally for shallow DOF rather than low light shots.
 
Just reviving this as I have some example shots.

Canon 10-22
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6
Tamron 10-24

All 3 lenses at 10mm wide open, f8 & f14 and then again at max focal length.

All in this set : http://www.flickr.com/photos/hotrods/sets/72157627672159911/

I tried to keep where I was standing and the focus point as consistent as possible.
All straight from the camera. These shots are probably not the ideal test, but hopefully will give some idea.

I'd be interested in what people think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top