Sigma 10-20mm v Canon 10-22mm

[Rob13]

Looking for an UWA to attach my 40D to. Off to NZ in November so after some once in a lifetime photos if the weather is right!

I know the Sigma can be had for as little as £250-£260 2nd hand and likewise the 10-22mm Canon around £400-420. Can anyone advise whether its worth the extra cash for the Canon? It appears as though the Canon prices have gone up massively in the last 6 months...

[bolf]

Hate to do this , but also consider the 12-24 tokina.

I picked one up at £190 second hand in mint condition on TP , lovely lens , Its certainly comparable to both the above

[AndWhyNot]

I have the Sigma 10-20 (Nikon fit). It's had a lot of use at night but at those times what it lacks is the f/3.5 of the Canon. Canon also seems to suffer less barrel distortion.

Have to say if I was buying UWA again I'd pick the Tokina 11-16. Opens to f/2.8, consistent build quality and plenty of distortion in places. Big problem for you is going to be finding one used.

[Trevelyan]

I've got the Sigma (Canon fit) and it's a great lens. When trying to make the decision on which one to buy I looked through several landscape photography magazines and books and found the majority of the photos were taken with one of those two lenses, with a few other random lens used at times. Between the two lenses it was a pretty even 50/50 split on use, so I decided on that basis it wasn't worth the extra money for the Canon.

[john185k]

I have a Canon fit Sigma for sale, 18 months old, has been used very little since November though. Think I still have the box and everything.

[Hairy Cornflake]

This was taken with the Sigma on a Canon EoS 500D at 16mm. The Sigma is the f3.5 version. The top of the cliff to the Fjord is 600m. There is a lot of distortion with the lens, ok for landscapes not so good when there are people at the edges of the pics.

[miniman]

And a mile or so downstream:

[Rob13]

john185k said:

I have a Canon fit Sigma for sale, 18 months old, has been used very little since November though. Think I still have the box and everything.

John, you have PM

Edited by Rob13 on Sunday 25th July 17:39

[minky monkey]

I've got the siggy lens. Brilliant lens. It made me look at shots in a whole new way!

[john185k]

Replied, this is an example of the 10-20mm Probably the lens that made me learn the most as you have to plan your shot, its not a snap away lens

[pphillpot]

I've got the Sigma for my Nikon and I love it, it does magic things to skies! I've got the slower version and rarely miss the extra stop, especially considering the extra cost of the f3.5 version.

[Simpo Two]

pphillpot said:

I've got the Sigma for my Nikon and I love it, it does magic things to skies! I've got the slower version and rarely miss the extra stop, especially considering the extra cost of the f3.5 version.

Though I suspect you've been doing some straightening out there!

[daver777]

i have the tokina 11-16mm
got from onestop digital - its a fantastic lens. cant remember how it compares price wise to the sigma and canon - dont think it was the cheapest though.

[pphillpot]

Actually, I've never needed to straighten an image taken with that lens (unlike wide angle shots taken on my Ricoh GX100). If you look at the large version you can see the horizon is starting to go, but it's not too bad considering:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paul_phillpot/3848895...

[pphillpot]

Although that's not to say it doesn't distort, it's just sensitive to your position. This shot shows things can get pretty distorted, the people and buildings in the background have gone a bit wierd:

[Wadeski]

[quote=pphillpot]I've got the Sigma for my Nikon and I love it, it does magic things to skies! I've got the slower version and rarely miss the extra stop, especially considering the extra cost of the f3.5 version.



That is a fan-bloody-tastic sky.

[Buzz word]

Hairy Cornflake said:

This was taken with the Sigma on a Canon EoS 500D at 16mm. The Sigma is the f3.5 version. The top of the cliff to the Fjord is 600m. There is a lot of distortion with the lens, ok for landscapes not so good when there are people at the edges of the pics.

You did well with the sky there. When I went to visit pullpit rock it was very grey. It seems a non grey sky Is a fairly rare thing in norway.

[dave-therave]

I had the Canon 10-22mm and thought it was an awesome lens. The only problem was that as soon as I went full frame (5D) it wouldn't fit my camera any more.

[Hairy Cornflake]

Buzz word said:

You did well with the sky there. When I went to visit pullpit rock it was very grey. It seems a non grey sky Is a fairly rare thing in norway.

I actually live in Egypt and went for a "cold" holiday, six out of the seven days were like the pic, the only overcast day was when we were in Olden!

[Rob13]

Well I've purchased John185k's Sigma, so here's hoping that with his lens, I can maybe garner some inspiration from it!