Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22

R

richardjjj

Messages
32
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi.
I am in the market for a 10 -20 mm lens for a 7D. The Sigma f3.5 offers good value but reviews indicate the canon lens a better performer albeit slightly slower. I also understand there are isssues with Sigma quality control with some lenses focus being questioned. Any real life experience appreciated as are any pointers to alternatives worth considering.
Regards.
Richard
 
The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is a better performer than the f/3.5. Less distortion and CA. It's certainly not worth the extra £200 for what many (that I've spoken to, who have owned/used both lenses) consider to be an inferior lens.

Let's face it, an extra stop or two at these focal lengths isn't going to make a difference. If you have to shoot 1/30th of a second instead of 1/60th of a second to get a stop back, camera shake isn't really going to be an issue. :)

I couldn't tell you about the Canon one, but for Nikon the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is the clear winner, especially for that kind of money.
 
If you find a good Sigma f/4-5.6 (can't comment of the f/3.5) it is pretty much on a par with the Canon - perhaps slightly more contrasty images from the Canon but in the real world nothing to write home about. However, I went through two dodgy Sigmas before giving up and buying the Canon! If you have the patience, or Sigma have sorted out their QC issues, either lens will do a good job. If you use Canon's DPP software, it might be worth bearing in mind the lens correction tools it offers for Canon lenses only.
 
I got a Sigma 10-20 in my bag and had the exact same set of concerns. I managed to try both lens in a LCE store and also spoke to the saleman in the store. He had a Sigma and basically told me that he had fully tested both and found the Sigma to be just as good.

Some people like to stick with the main brand, but for 2mm more focal length an extra stop and probably £200 i could not justify the Canon.

Jump on to flickr and do a search for Sigma 10-20, there are plenty of shots on flickr taken with the lens. There are also some on my flickr, linked below.
 
I have read a lot a review about the two sigma lenses, and nearly all I have read or spoke to tend to go for the 4-5.6 as it seems to perform better than the 3.5

The canon I think performs better in areas and the sigma in other areas, but from what I have read nothing worth the price difference you would pay.
 
Thanks for the replies. Are there other options or does it fall to Canon and Sigma. Also most of the issues with soft focus I have read about relate to the f4.0-5-6 Sigma. Have they been resolved with the f3.5?
 
According to AP a few months ago, the Tokina 12-24 out-performed the Sigma f3.5. I recently purchased the Siggy f4-5.6 from the classifieds here and am totally happy with the quality.
 
Thanks for that. The Tokinas seem generally to be Nikon Mount - has anyone experience with the Canon mount please
 
GarynLea said:
According to AP a few months ago, the Tokina 12-24 out-performed the Sigma f3.5.
Click to expand...
From everything I've read, all of the alternatives out-perform the Sigma f/3.5. ;)
 
Kaouthia said:
The Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is a better performer than the f/3.5. Less distortion and CA. It's certainly not worth the extra £200 for what many (that I've spoken to, who have owned/used both lenses) consider to be an inferior lens.

Let's face it, an extra stop or two at these focal lengths isn't going to make a difference. If you have to shoot 1/30th of a second instead of 1/60th of a second to get a stop back, camera shake isn't really going to be an issue. :)

I couldn't tell you about the Canon one, but for Nikon the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 is the clear winner, especially for that kind of money.
Click to expand...

What he said. I regularly shoot at around 10-12mm on my Sigma (which means I can go down to f/4) at 1/13 and get steady images. I often use mine as wide as I can go which means really to me, it's an f/4 lens. The extra dough for half a stop that I can always add by upping the ISO isn't worth it. As also mentioned, quality seems to be an issue on the 3.5.

Don't forget as well, the 10-20 is an EX lens - this stands for Excellence, which is Sigma's highest quality, professional line of lenses. It's basically the equivalent of a Canon L glass or the pro NIKKOR lenses - but for great prices.

Don't let brand snobbery sway you. I've taken many photographs of the entire spread of a newspaper with my Sigma - and you can easily read the print. It's a great lens, never far from my side. You also get a free bag, and a hood with it, it feels gorgeous in your hand and the focus/zoom rings are silky smooth.

I <3 Sigma :D

Yes, there are the QC issues but if you get a bad apple, return it, simple.

BTW: Barrel Distortion on the Sigma is very, very well controlled. At around 10-12mm, there is slight barrel distortion in the corners, where your object will appear to bend 'around' the corner slightly.After about 13mm this starts to pincushion, so basically shooting at 12mm ish will give you almost perfectly formed image.

Have a look at the lines on this image:

IMG_8308_sb.jpg


NO PP was done to correct that.
 
Thanks Norma, I am not bothered by the name, merely performance. The Sigma is cheaper but still not an insignificant outlay, I'm just looking to make sure I make the wisest choice, so again, many thanks for your input.

Regards.
Richard
 
if you do buy a sigma that isnt that sharp, send it to sigma for servicing.
 
i would think under warrenty yes, though a quick call to sigma UK will confirm. if its out of warrenty its only around £30 - £40.
 
I have just ordered the Canon 10-22, after many weeks research, debating between the Canon and the Sigma 10-20. I just came accross too many threads from various sites, where owners complained of issues with sharpness, and faulty versions. Having said that, I suppose people tend to write about the bad stuff, and I am sure there will be many perfect Sigma versions out there. I also had experience of AF failure on my own Sigma 17-35, which failed after only 13 months. To their credit Sigma did agree to repair it free of charge. However the AF has since failed again, hence I am going for the Canon.
 
I have the Canon and can happily say it is faultless. The most flare resistance lens I've ever used, great sharpness corner to corner, very resistant to CA, barrel distortion and pin cushioning.
 
Save your money and purchase the Sigma 10-20 4.5-5.6. It does depends what youre looking for but in terms of image quality you'll be lucky to see the difference.

If you look at the tokina F4, realise that the field of view between 10mm & 12mm can be a huge advantage. The Sigma produces a more natural coloured shot compared to the tokina.

That said you could get sucked in by the Tokina focus ring and build/design quality.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top