Ultra Wide Angle Solution- Sigma or Canon?

[Aryan]

I have a simple enough query, which is confusing me more than perhaps I would like to be confused. :p

I am looking to purchase one of those ultra wide-angle lenses. My choices are the following:

1. Canon 10-22mm f3.5 - f4.5 USM Lens
2. Sigma 10-20mm f4.0 - f5.6 EX DC Lens

The Canon obviously costs significantly higher than the Sigma, but after reading through lots of reviews online, I came to the conclusion that the Sigma isn't really a "bad" lens at all. On the contrary, it gives quite the competition to the Canon UWA Lens.

The Sigma 10-20mm is priced at Rs.20k (gray market), while the Canon 10-22mm is priced well over Rs.30k (gray market). What do you guys suggest? I have personally used the Canon 10-22mm and LOVED it for the area that it covers. If 'coverage' is all I am looking for, then the Sigma also covers the same area (10mm) as the Canon does, but my main concern is the following -
Are third party lenses trust-worthy?

The lenses which I own at present (50mm, "kit" lens, and the 100mm macro) are all from Canon. If I do go for the Sigma 10-20mm, it would be my first third party lens. Has anyone had any issues with using any third party lenses? Also, if anyone here has used the Sigma 10-20mm personally, it would be great to hear from him/ her. I am not in a great hurry as such, just need some information so that my purchase is not based on the 'manufacturer' but on the 'actual value' of the lens.

Thanks.
-Aryan

[KrishnenduKes]

Query Approved

You have yourself used the 10-22. From what I remember, it is a EF-S lens. And a EF-S lens canNOT be used on a FF camera. What I am trying to say, if one day you move on to a FF camera, which I am sure you will, this lens will be used on your 2nd camera only.

I do not know anything about the Sigma. All I know is that some 3rd party lenses are really good. But you also have to check the speed of the autofocus of the 3rd party lenses and their motors in the reviews.

Happy hunting.

[Sarao]

You can't go wrong with Sigma. I am using Sigma 17-70 and its Damn Sharp! No issues till now, focussing is accurate, no vignetting, no soft or missed focusses. I have just ordered Sigma 24-70 2.8, as I know, YOU CAN't GO WRONG WITH SIGMA. Regarding Canon, I dont think there is any need to review that lens.

I'd say if you are on budget, go for it! Otherwise, go for Canon as it have sharp edges as compared to Sigma. Or you can Look for Tokina 12-24. I personally don't know about it, but read some good reviews.

BUT someone's budget is an important aspect to see.

[KrishnenduKes]

You can't go wrong with Sigma. I am using Sigma 17-70 and its Damn Sharp! No issues till now, focussing is accurate, no vignetting, no soft or missed focusses. I have just ordered Sigma 24-70 2.8, as I know, YOU CAN't GO WRONG WITH SIGMA.

Maybe this is OT but I would like to know still... you say you are using the 17-70 and you have ordered the 24-70! To me that does not make sense.

[Sarao]

Yes because, 17-70 is not constant 2.8, the 2.8 range is just for 3mm, I mean it stope down at 20mm. Whereas 24-70 is constant 2.8 through the complete range.

[KrishnenduKes]

@Sarao: Thanks.

@Aryan: Another thing I noticed, on the Canon, you are getting a faster lens at f3.5. But I guess the price difference is quite big. But then again, if you are willing to wait... But I would still want to go for a NON EF-S lens.

[Aryan]

@Sarao: Thanks.

@Aryan: Another thing I noticed, on the Canon, you are getting a faster lens at f3.5. But I guess the price difference is quite big. But then again, if you are willing to wait... But I would still want to go for a NON EF-S lens.
Yes, the 10-22mm is ofcourse faster, at f3.5 but then again the purpose for which the ultra wide angle lenses are used (landscape, architecture, etc.) seldom needs such wide apertures. Moreover, I have read that the Sigma 10-20mm has fast autofocus (thanks to HSM motor) and the quality is at par with the Canon lenses. The 10-22mm is perhaps just a wee bit sharper on the edges at 10 and 20mm respectively. But a difference of 15k is too much for me to neglect, although I must confess the Canon 10-22mm is the lens I will get if I have the moolah. :D

Yes, the Canon lens will not fit on a full frame body, but the Sigma will! That is ofcourse a BIG point to consider. If I do upgrade to a full-frame camera in the future, I would have to sell off my EF-S lens(es). :(

@Sarao: Great to finally read a review of a third party lens (the Sigma 17-70mm). I cannot really spend 30k+ on a camera lens, hence I am leaning towards the Sigma. I haven't used any third party lenses, that is the reason I am a bit skeptical, but you say you have been using Sigma lenses for quite some time and you haven't really found any defects with the same. That's a relief, for sure! ;)

Yes, the Tokina 12-24 is another terrific wide angle lens, but 12mm is just not my cup of tea. I am looking for 10mm focal length. The difference between 10mm and 12mm might not SOUND a lot, but it is a LOT when one actually sees the difference. Hence my confusion between the Canon and the Sigma Ultra Wide-Angle lenses. :)

[Sarao]

In my opinion, one dont need FF bodies if he's not serious about the photography (but not if he has A LOT TO SPEND ON A HOBBY). 5D is around 1 LAC, so going that way to buy a FF body is far enough! Atleast for me! I can't see my self buying a FF for some 4 or 5 years.

[powerslave]

1. This is one of the toughest choicest to be made by a photog that I've seen online.
2. I've used the Canon and it is outright L material, too bad its not FF. It is an EXCELLENT lens in all respects.
3. I disagree with Ken on not buying a good lens because some day you might upgrade to a full frame. Enjoy the present.

[KrishnenduKes]

So I guess Aryan is soon going to write a review of the Sigma lens. :D

[Vicky]

+1 On the Canon 10-22:)

[nelson_sanjoy]

Dont flame me ;) - just some constructive discussion

Dont you think 10mm is kind of too wide - I know it apparently becomes 16mm on Crop cameras but AFA my experience with 10-22 I found it to be too distorted from 10-12 (dont know anything about the Sigma ) . I found the 16-35 to be much more pleasant on FF instead.

Your thoughts ?

[powerslave]

Hey nelson, there's a reason they are called UWA!

I don't know about the sigma cause I haven't used one, but the 10-22 is an excellent lens and has been rated as high as a lens can be rated in terms of optical quality in various reviews.

I love that lens and I'll buy it in a heartbeat once I have a full time job.

[Aryan]

@Nelson: Yes, it is too wide, and that is precisely the reason I am looking for one. The 16-35 wouldn't really be a wide angle lens on a cropped sensor. I already have the 18-55 IS lens for that kind of coverage. So, I guess getting the 10-20 (or 10-22) would always be better suited both, in terms of coverage as well as because I have a cropped sensor D-SLR (the EOS 400D).

P.S: The confusion continues - the heart obviously says the Canon 10-22m while the brain (the logics of it) says go for the 10-20mm - great quality for the price paid.. :D

[Bibudesh]

@aryan,

FInd this flickr link http://www.flickr.com/photos/kartz/2907590517/in/set-72157607632807494/
I have been following this guy's work pretty often. he is using Sigma 10-20mm in a combo with Nikon D200 ...
Sigma 10-20mm is no less than any any wide angle propr lenses from Nikon/Canon , which I concluded after lotza research... ..

[Aryan]

@aryan,

FInd this flickr link http://www.flickr.com/photos/kartz/2907590517/in/set-72157607632807494/
I have been following this guy's work pretty often. he is using Sigma 10-20mm in a combo with Nikon D200 ...
Sigma 10-20mm is no less than any any wide angle propr lenses from Nikon/Canon , which I concluded after lotza research... ..
Thanks for that link SP! The photographs seems terrific. So, the Sigma ain't really a bad lens per se, huh? ;)

Are you using any Ultra Wide Angles for your Nikon?

[archistar]

Aryan, sigma 10-20 really seems interesting... 'm also getting some good reviews as compared to canon 10-22.....

we should go shopping for it :D:D:D

[Bibudesh]

Thanks for that link SP! The photographs seems terrific. So, the Sigma ain't really a bad lens per se, huh? ;)

Are you using any Ultra Wide Angles for your Nikon?

Nopes I haven't.. Till date my kit lens at 18mm has not disppointed me.
Plus I wud suggest u to first push ur kit lens to limits before investing..
Very often I end up cropping my foto at that FL also... And DOF with 18mm is not bad at all...

Go for ultra wide investement if u think u really need it. A FL of 10mm is seldom used, I mean u can't shoot anything other than Landscapes at that FL.
The wide angle distortion effect at 10-14mm is not something u'll need very often , and when on street u'll end up changing lenses more than shooting ....

I wud suggest 'all time favs' 24-70mm f/2.8 more than 'seldom used' ultra wides.

[Sarao]

I wud suggest 'all time favs' 24-70mm f/2.8 more than 'seldom used' ultra wides.

Sorry for the OT, but if you wanna go for a 24-70 (or any one wanna go for this lens for any reason) do consider Sigma 24-70 2.8

[nelson_sanjoy]

Hey nelson, there's a reason they are called UWA!

I don't know about the sigma cause I haven't used one, but the 10-22 is an excellent lens and has been rated as high as a lens can be rated in terms of optical quality in various reviews.

I love that lens and I'll buy it in a heartbeat once I have a full time job.

I know its an UWA lens but I think it cannot be used for many other purposes other than landscapes. Even while photgraphing monuments / structures it suffers badly from edge distortion which is not something bad but a characteristic of lenses of such wavelength.And people say Canon still has lower distortion than other lenses of same wavelength. Have you seen Tokina 11-16 /2.8?

@Nelson: Yes, it is too wide, and that is precisely the reason I am looking for one. The 16-35 wouldn't really be a wide angle lens on a cropped sensor. I already have the 18-55 IS lens for that kind of coverage. So, I guess getting the 10-20 (or 10-22) would always be better suited both, in terms of coverage as well as because I have a cropped sensor D-SLR (the EOS 400D).

P.S: The confusion continues - the heart obviously says the Canon 10-22m while the brain (the logics of it) says go for the 10-20mm - great quality for the price paid.. :D

@Aryan - As you know a 10-22 will still give you a FOV of 10-22 and not 16-35 on any camera so thought its too wide .We APSC sensor owners always have to compromise when it comes to wideangle.

Sorry for the OT, but if you wanna go for a 24-70 (or any one wanna go for this lens for any reason) do consider Sigma 24-70 2.8

I would say Tamron 28-75/2.8 - its compared to Canon 24-70/2.8 which is thrice its value (but is L and USM) and is optically slightly better than the Sigma .

[Sarao]

i would say tamron 28-75/2.8 - its compared to canon 24-70/2.8 which is thrice its value (but is l and usm) and is optically slightly better than the sigma .

okk....!!!

[powerslave]

Trust me, I have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 with me right now. Its a good lens that gives great crisp images, but the Canon is one better. My roommate has one copy too and he was on a trip to India recently, and complained about it missing focus on a lot of quick action photos.

And its a good copy, tested for front/back focusing. Don't get me wrong its tremendous value for money and delivers some kickass photos, but the price you pay for Canon will get you a better product with better af/speed accuracy etc. Its just a question of whether that increased performance is worth the price difference to you.

Some of my basketball photos have been through this 28-75 and they're killer.

[powerslave]

I know its an UWA lens but I think it cannot be used for many other purposes other than landscapes. Even while photgraphing monuments / structures it suffers badly from edge distortion which is not something bad but a characteristic of lenses of such wavelength.And people say Canon still has lower distortion than other lenses of same wavelength. Have you seen Tokina 11-16 /2.8?


That's a bad generalization - to say it cannot be used for anything other than landscapes. I use that lens from time to time, for everything from portraits to street photography and assignments related to including large portions of a scene indoors or even outdoors.

I have never felt its TOO wide, because I have found myself using the wide end quite a bit. In fact if you read through other forums, many people who have this lens rarely take it off their camera.

To say a lens is mostly only for landscapes is a gross under-representation of its capabilities. It depends on how you use it.




I would say Tamron 28-75/2.8 - its compared to Canon 24-70/2.8 which is thrice its value (but is L and USM) and is optically slightly better than the Sigma .

The 17-50 would be a better compromise for someone who's looking out for an UWA.

[manav]

Will not join you on the extreme techinical usablilty front. Will just vouch for Sigma's build I've used quite a few over the years and never had a problem with any of them they are pretty good. Just dont ever hold them next to Canon L lenses because then it will be Maruti & Mercedes waali baat.

[Aryan]

Will not join you on the extreme techinical usablilty front. Will just vouch for Sigma's build I've used quite a few over the years and never had a problem with any of them they are pretty good. Just dont ever hold them next to Canon L lenses because then it will be Maruti & Mercedes waali baat.
:D

Anyhow, the 10-22 is not an "L" lens, so I guess comparing the two is okay, eh? ;) As for the discussions regarding 28-75 f2.8 and 17-50, I would better stay with the "kit" 18-55 IS lens (it's really okay as far as I am concerned. I am looking to go wide, hence, the 10mm focal length. ;)

[powerslave]

I read somewhere (and I don't dispute at all), that the 10-22 uses elements from L glass. Will look out and confirm this, but I don't dispute it one bit.

I guess they don't call it L cause its only EF-S.

[nelson_sanjoy]

That's a bad generalization - to say it cannot be used for anything other than landscapes. I use that lens from time to time, for everything from portraits to street photography and assignments related to including large portions of a scene indoors or even outdoors.
this lens rarely take it off their camera.

To say a lens is mostly only for landscapes is a gross under-representation of its capabilities. It depends on how you use it.

@PS - Every lens has its speciality and thats why we buys SLR's to use it with multiple lenses. Now you may call it bad generalization or under representation - I cannot do everything with a single lens .I dont know street photography but atleast dont see myself clicking portraits with 10-22/ f3.5-4.5 because of distortions - not that it cant be clicked but that its not meant for it.

@Aryan - Did you already buy any of Canon or Sigma? Expecting a review with pics :)

[Aryan]

@Aryan - Did you already buy any of Canon or Sigma? Expecting a review with pics :)

Naah, not uptil now. Have to wait for a few days.. ;)

[KrishnenduKes]

Naah, not uptil now. Have to wait for a few days.. ;)

Me too. I am waiting for the review.