Canon 10-22mm worth an Upgrade over sigma 10-20mm ?

C

Chris seager

Messages
245
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Currently i have a Sigma 10-20mm and mainly use the lens for filming, the quality is very good, but sometimes i think it could be better especially slightly lower light. Would it be worth upgrading to a Canon 10-22mm or would their not be much difference in quality ?


Thanks Chris
 
I can't really comment on the Sigma 10-20mm but I do know that lots of people rave about it.

I used to have a Canon 10-22mm and I now have the Sigma 12-24mm which I think is a much better lens than the Canon. I'd be surprised if the Canon is an upgrade from your Sigma.

What is it about low light performance that you're not happy with? If you want a faster lens it'll cost you...
 
in short no. I think there is slightly less distortion on the canon and the canon is just the little bit wider on the aperture. thats it really.
 
I'd have suggested yes if you had IQ issues, however you don't so I'd maybe say no.

You then go on to mention lower light conditions, in which case maybe think about the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8... It is pretty much unsupassed in low light conditions at that focal length...
 
Amp34 said:
You then go on to mention lower light conditions, in which case maybe think about the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8... It is pretty much unsupassed in low light conditions at that focal length...
Click to expand...

^ That. Tokina makes arguably the best UWA lenses available under £1k. It is great on FF too with small limitations.
 
Both the Tokina 12-24 (which I owned) and 11-16 (shameless plug - which I have for sale BTW in this forum ;)) are better choices due to the constant aperture (and great sharpness) in my opinion.
 
woof woof said:
"Tokina makes arguably the best UWA lenses available under £1k. It is great on FF too with small limitations."

FF? This is an APS-C lens isn't it?

http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx116prodx-b.html
Click to expand...

That is only the official description. On FF the wide end is no good, but the longer end fine :nuts:. That gives even wider FOV than the wide end on APS-C.

Tokina 12-24 at 20mm on 1Ds mk2 full frame goodness, not cropped. It CAN go wider than that.
4360437946_a3a96bd045.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daugirdas/4360437946/

Another chap here has 11-16 and uses it from 14mm on his 5D.
 
"It is but I believe it works on FF at 16mm without any ramifications."

"Tokina 11-16mm works on full frame from 14 to 16mm and on 1.3x bodies from 13 to 16mm."

Hmmm. The Sigma 12-24mm works at 12-24mm, but it isn't f2.8. Can't have everything I suppose.
 
Not much difference between f3.5 (canon) and f4 (sigma) so i don't think its worth to upgrade.
 
I think the overall feel of the image from the Canon is the nicest. I find the colours and clarity are better than the others.

The aperture... well, I've never really found a use for the f2.8, but I guess you might if you are mucking around with low light, but at 11mm ish the dof is massive anyway, absolute focus accuracy is little importance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top