Wide Angle Lens in 10-20 (ish) range

Freester

Freester

Messages
1,602
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I am looking at buying a new lens for landscape for my 400D.

I guess the obvious options are the

Canon EFS 10-22
Sigma 10-20

Discussing this with a guy in my local Jessops (who has been giving some pretty good advice) he also threw into mix and confused me further by suggesting I consider the Sigma 12-24.

So the way I see it is the Canon 10-22 and Sigma 10-20 are for a cropped sensor so won't be forwardly compatible if I upgrade to a full frame camera at some point (then again I guess at that point I would be thinking about a new lens anyway!). With the Sigma cheaper than the Canon.

The Sigma 12-24 would be forwardly compatible but pricewise is getting close to the Canon 10-22. I also gather from the internet that because the lens bulbs at the front fitting a filter is difficult... Is this true?

Just wondering what other people's experience is and who is using what?

Thanks in advance

Mark F
 
I use a 10-20 on a Nikon. Friends with Canons tend to suggest, get the EF-S 10-22 if you can afford it. It's a better lens, and worth the extra money. But at the same time, I can't fault my Sigma. Some people with the Canon version of the Sigma 10-20 have had the MF/AF switch break (the Nikon version doesn't have one), leaving the lens unable to focus, either manually or otherwise. Whether this is a known fault, or rare, I don't know. The person who I can think of who's had it happen twice does give his kit fair abuse though!!
 
Canon 10-22 for me, cracking lens, if you've got the cash go for it. Lots of people on here also have the sigma and it too is a good lens, but I think the Canon scrapes it on quality (as you'd expect for the extra cash).
 
Canon if you can afford it if not the sigma 10-20mm its ment to be loads better then the 12-24mm sigma.
 
Sigma 10-20 every time.

img_6419-edit-2.jpg


IMG_4167_9_8-2.jpg


img_9232_1_0.jpg


Bought it for £330. About 3 months later sold an image for £500 :D
 
petemc said:
Bought it for £330. About 3 months later sold an image for £500 :D
Click to expand...

Think that says more about your ability than it does the Lens to be honest!

If you get a good copy there is no doubt the Sigma is a cracking lens but I've seen a few test shots from some terrible examples on here. I guess you pays your money and takes your chances, you can always return it if it's duff!
 
Mine turned up today, absolutly cracking lens, reccomend everyone goes get one!
 
Sigma 10-20 gets my vote.

If you buy this month's copy of Digital Photo Magazine they have a review of ultra wide lenses, including the Siggy 10-20 & 12-24 and the Canon 10-22.

IIRC the Sigma 10-20 wins their gold award :)
 
Grendel said:
Sigma 10-20 gets my vote.

If you buy this month's copy of Digital Photo Magazine they have a review of ultra wide lenses, including the Siggy 10-20 & 12-24 and the Canon 10-22.

IIRC the Sigma 10-20 wins their gold award :)
Click to expand...

indeed it does...i've been tempted over the past few days to get this lens - if only the person who owes me some money for a web site would pay up :LOL:
 
oh, just a quick on on this...how good would this be for taking portraits indoors? I might have to do something along these lines within the next few weeks and was wondering if this lens would be a suitable addition to my 50mm? The room I might be using will be a small room and I would need to get the person plus some equipment in shot.

(sorry for hijacking!)
 
kfridge said:
oh, just a quick on on this...how good would this be for taking portraits indoors? I might have to do something along these lines within the next few weeks and was wondering if this lens would be a suitable addition to my 50mm? The room I might be using will be a small room and I would need to get the person plus some equipment in shot.

(sorry for hijacking!)
Click to expand...

Not very good. An ideal portrait range is around the 85mm-130mm range. It would make them look distorted.
 
I've been using the Sigma 10-20 on my old Canon, and I've since bought another for use on my D300. It's a fantastic lens that get a lot of use.
I wouldn't recommend it for portrait use though, apart from anything else you have to get right into the photo, which wouldn't work so well for portraits.
 
:agree:

definately not a lens for portraits. You would have to get so close to your subject that the distortion would be horrible
 
thanks, that's more or less what I thought...I'll have to think of another reason I need one now :)

oh, camera price buster has them at £274 at the moment...
 
Thanks for replies all. Looks like the 12-24 is out. Just got to work out my budget now I guess...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top