Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20?

[marctwo]

I can get a second hand Canon 10-22 for slightly less than a brand new Sigma 10-20. I would certainly go for the Canon were it not for the fact that my second body is a D30 and cannot use EF-S lenses. Would I mad to get the Sigma?

[Tareq]

I can't tell you that one is the best, but to me canon is worth it.

[steved110]

The sigma has superb write ups, and cost wise is much better value for money than the canon.
are you planning to replace your D30 any time soon? As it is only your second body, it seems likely to me you can work your way round the EF-S thing easily enough.
Ultimately, choosing between the two comes down to money. IMO new is better than used because of the warranty. I'd rather get a new sigma than a used Canon, unless I knew ALL about the used lens and why it was for sale.

[marctwo]

The sigma has superb write ups, and cost wise is much better value for money than the canon.
are you planning to replace your D30 any time soon? As it is only your second body, it seems likely to me you can work your war round the EF-S thing easily enough.
Ultimately, choosing between the two comes down to money. IMO new is better than used because of the warranty. I'd rather get a new sigma than a used Canon, unless I knew ALL about the used lens and why it was for sale.

Not planning to replace the D30 any time soon. I realise the Sigma is a good lens but the Canon just seems like a bargain.

[farrukh]

Sigma because new is good

[benca1]

you're not going to lose either way. If the Canon is slightly less, works good, and also works on all of your equipment - then go that route. I always recommend the Sigma for people who are buying new.

[Thordic]

The Sigma is easily my best lens as far as general IQ goes. I also find it tremendously easy to shoot with. Not that my other lenses are slouches, but the Sigma just seems to take consistantly better pictures.

[desertracer]

Just got the Sigma couple weeks ago. Never used the Canon before but the Sigma is pretty good to me already. Color and picture quality is excellent. Focus speed of my copy is pretty good comparing to my other Canon lens. It provides enough details for the 1.6x crop sensor camera. I would rather spend the extra $$ on telephoto.

[GNMink]

Tokina 12-24, it will work with your D30 and offers IQ on par with the Canon, better than the 10-20 sigma in IQ, and is built like a tank.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

[blue_max]

I would say the Canon lens has done it's depreciating now. The Sigma will be worth rather less after it is second hand. Chances are that you could probably get your money back on the Canon. I have the Canon 10-22 and boy is it wide - you really have to be inches from people to get them to even come close to filling the frame. It's fairly light too compared to a 17-40L.

Just a note that ALL my lenses are second hand. Various from members here and Ebay. All are Canon and I am delighted with each and every one.

Graham

[farrukh]

Tokina 12-24.... is built like a tank.


Then Sigma is built atleast like a bulldozer :D

[marctwo]

Tokina looks interesting but it's more money than the Sigma or used Canon. Depreciation is a good point, but I still like the idea of being able to use this lens on both my bodys. Meeting a friend tomorrow who has the Sigma so that might make up my mind.

[obsessed]

I just got a used canon 10-22mm on ebay. I wanted something really wide since I have 350D. It will come this week. The guy said he hardly used it and it is a few months old. He had pics of it. He had a 100% good reviews. I also bought the sigma 24-70mm EX on ebay and have been happy with it, although have not tested it enough. But works and it was $200 less. They also though in a nice UV filter, had all the things it originally came with. I do notice canon holds its value.

Also for lens that cost around $1000 or more you are better off buying new since they seem to cost about the same on ebay used or new from an online merchant. For example I am looking to buy a canon 100-400mm and new online at a reputable merchant is about the same as a used on ebay. That seems to be true of high end ones.

[benca1]

I would say the Canon lens has done it's depreciating now. The Sigma will be worth rather less after it is second hand. Chances are that you could probably get your money back on the Canon. I have the Canon 10-22 and boy is it wide - you really have to be inches from people to get them to even come close to filling the frame. It's fairly light too compared to a 17-40L.

Just a note that ALL my lenses are second hand. Various from members here and Ebay. All are Canon and I am delighted with each and every one.

Graham

You know... The bigma sells used about the same price as it is new. I've seen sell for more then new (like with canon L glass all the time). The 70-200 sells as much as it is new, so does the 1.4 30mm.

With the several hundred dollars one saves buying Sigma over Canon, you could invest that money and next year get another lens for free. :lol:

[MrChad]

I'd say if the Canon is cheaper go for it.

1. I would rather use the ultra wide on the better body, I use mine on a 300D and even then I think the puppy needs (or wants) more resolution. So that said I can't imagine trying to use the 10-20 on the D30. You are cramming so much lighter per sensor with the wide angles.

2. It's cheaper, less money is less money. If the Canon works fine I doubt you have little to worry about. It's built as well as any other can up level consumer lens.

Unless of course you really like using the D30, then the choice is simple...

[Amorous]

Then Sigma is built atleast like a bulldozer :D
I dropped my a week old sigma 10-20 while I was changing lenses couple of weeks ago. I dropped it to the concrete floor (probably from about 4 feet high). My heart stopped. I picked up the lens and visually checked. Everything was intact, not even a dent. Put it back on my 20D and finished the day shooting great pictures.

I'm SOLD on Sigma.

[firef0x]

In this case I would buy the Sigma new.

Now, if the 10-22 is local and you can shoot with it then check the iq on a laptop then it may be a consideration. It also depends on the following factors;

1. History of the lense (when and where was it purchased)?
2. Can the seller show you a copy of the original receipt?
3. How many owners?
4. How much has it been used?
5. Why is the person selling it?
6. Is this a person you know or not?
7. Is the lens covered under waranty?
8. Is the lens in good condition?
9. Is this a local transaction or out of state?
10. Can you shoot test shots and view iq on a laptop?

If the 10-22 can meet these requirements then it may be worth buying, otherwise go for the Sigma new. Generally speaking, for lenses in this price range and up I prefer to buy new and eliminate all the gray areas. Everyone is different though.

[SeanH]

Canon is much better, I just read a test that said it blew away the other lenses in barrel distortion with only 0.52%, the Sigma had 1.26%, Tamron 1.01,Tokina 1.22, & Nikon at 1.31%.

Check out Popular Phtography, April issue they rate the Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina "Ultrawide zooms". then One the following pages rate the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta.

Looking at the Aftermarket brands the Tokina 12-24 was the only one to get an A+ on IQ at 11X14 sixe...........24mm @5.6 & F8

[Incredirebelz]

i think the Tokina 12-24 is cheaper than Sigma or Canon.

I have had the tokina for about 250 shots so far. In short, I have not found a weakness that would drive me to go for the Canon. I would rather commit blasphemy than to deny it being as sharp as my Ls.
If there's one thing the Canon 10-22 can do any better, i'd say it's that royalness you feel about your equipment.

[benca1]

Canon is much better, I just read a test that said it blew away the other lenses in barrel distortion with only 0.52%, the Sigma had 1.26%, Tamron 1.01,Tokina 1.22, & Nikon at 1.31%.

Check out Popular Phtography, April issue they rate the Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina "Ultrawide zooms". then One the following pages rate the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta.

Looking at the Aftermarket brands the Tokina 12-24 was the only one to get an A+ on IQ at 11X14 sixe...........24mm @5.6 & F8

barrel distortion at what apaterure or focal length? Look at photozone and you'll see the canon has inferior resolution, but costs 30 to 40 percent more.

No matter, because for any print you hang on the wall, you would never ever see any difference. So why not save yourself a few hundred dollars?

[jdub808]

cant beat USM =)

[benca1]

cant beat USM =)

That's right, which is why Sigma equaled it with HSM. :p

I decided a week ago to stop letting canon fans be so smug about spending a lot more money then needed!

[StealthLude]

i LOVE my 10-22... My favorite lens on my collection.

You can never get too wide, + the optics are great.

[SeanH]

barrel distortion at what apaterure or focal length? Look at photozone and you'll see the canon has inferior resolution, but costs 30 to 40 percent more.


At the lens widest point. I don't know if the F stop would have any affect on that test, because they didn't mention it. They did say the Nikon had a bit better contrast, which would make it sharper.

[benca1]

At the lens widest point. I don't know if the F stop would have any affect on that test, because they didn't mention it. They did say the Nikon had a bit better contrast, which would make it sharper.

Yeah, I don't know why I said aperture and then misspelled it. Like my wife claims, I just like to look dumb.

Anyhoo, my boring point is only that the final spec of any lens is the price, and this is typically Canon's worst spec. Picking apart the UWA offerings is an exercise in frustration since all of them, apparently, perform very well. Canon stinks at 10mm, where the Sigma shines to near perfection. The SIgma falls aparts at 14mm and up, where the canon just gets stronger and stronger. And then there's Tamron and Tokina, with well rated UWA zooms as well. The selection is there, and the offerings are all pretty good. Given this, I still don't get how someone who isn't rich buys the canon instead.

[marctwo]

I've just had a look at a friend's Sigma 10-20 and was really impressed. HSM was fast and quiet and the build quality is excellent. Could not give it a proper test because he has the Nikon version on a D50 (also really nice!).

[glowie]

Canon, becausethe numerical equivalent of canon spelled backwards in latin katana is 06-06-06

[Neilyb]

I wouldn't swap my Tokina 12-24 for either lens. Sharp. Colourful. Built like a brick and the AF isn't bad, not USM, but it does fine for me landscapes!

[marctwo]

I wouldn't swap my Tokina 12-24 for either lens. Sharp. Colourful. Built like a brick and the AF isn't bad, not USM, but it does fine for me landscapes!

I already have a Tamron 17-35 so if I get something wider I'd rather get the widest I can. This is why it's between the Canon and the Sigma.

[obsessed]

I already have a Tamron 17-35 so if I get something wider I'd rather get the widest I can. This is why it's between the Canon and the Sigma.
I agree, on my crop 350D I want the widest I can get...ultimately it was between sigma and canon...just got my canon 10-22, second hand but in mint condition, no dust inside...have not tried outside since it is raining, but tried inside, extremely fast focusing and no noise...at first I thought it was not focusing but looked at the distance window and saw it was turning to focus...love it so far...wide as hack in my studio...love it and have not used it outside. I can't compare build quality since I have not held the sigma but if my sigma 24-70mm is anything like the wide sigma then build will go to sigma but canon is not far behind...

[coreyc23]

The Sigma 10-20 arrived 30 minutes ago. I'm posting the very first shot I took with it. Outdoor lighting late in the day (7PM), and subject is somewhat unwilling :)

This was shot at 10mm, and he was about 10" from the front of the lens. Very pleased thus far.

The original image file can be seen here:
http://www.globalcomputing.net/photogallery/close.JPG

[Elan Remford]

I've yet to see a lens that outpaces the EF-S 10-22 in its class. IMO, it's worth every cent and the clear choice.

E.

[Mono]

There was a good discussion here on different wide angle lenses (http://www.pixalo.com/community/cameras-lenses-accessories/wide-angle-lense-there-wider-one-3597.html), with the onus going towards the SIgma 10-20mm. I've got one & it's perfect

[jdub808]

I've yet to see a lens that outpaces the EF-S 10-22 in its class. IMO, it's worth every cent and the clear choice.

E.

i agree

[Enmisites]

I was asking myself the same question about 2 months ago and with a lot of research (mainly from this site) I waited for a second hand canon at a good price and went with that.

The 2006 TIPA (Techincal Image Press Associates) awards rated the Sigma 10-20 the best consumer lens.

What do they know? go the canon its great.

[benca1]

Just to play devils advocate; no one can tell the difference between a 10-20 sigma and a 10-22 canon on a print that I know of.

If this is so, why spend several hundred dollars more then? Just for name? Where exactly and how is the canon better then any of the UWAs on the market? Without an exact and specific answer that is testable consistently, then spending more for nothing doesn't seem like an effective use of ones terrible short supply of post-tax dollars. :p

[AdamJL]

This discussion reminds me of the constant battles between AMD/Intel, and nVidia/ATI.

Both companies high end offerings are much of a muchness... a lot of game benchmarks are between 2-15 frames per second apart - which sells hardware. But this doesn't make sense when you realise that if a game is playing at 120fps anyway, you're not going to notice the difference between 120fps and 135fps.
Same here - image quality will be roughly on par to most of us, so I'd go for the cheapest option - the Sigma.

[Olegis]

I went with Sigma, mainly because I use 10D so an EF-S lense is not an option for me. The Tokina does not have a representative where I live and it also lacks these 2mm at the wide side. The Sigma also has better flare and CA control than Tokina.

The Canon 10-22 may be better lens than the Sigma 10-20, but the cost is too high for me, even if I was able to use an EF-S lens. I just cannot justify spending 170$ more for a lens which may be slightly better than the alternative.

[AdamJL]

Just found this for the Canon (in the UK)

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?currency=GBP&products_id=32

Quite a good price I thought.

But the Sigma is over £100 cheaper:

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=130

[marctwo]

Onestop are located in Hong Kong which is why their prices are quite cheap.

[AdamJL]

Ordinarily, this would put me off, but they have a VAT reclaim facility that makes their prices VERY competitive

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/vat_reclaim.php

[marctwo]

I've just ordered the Sigma from Jessops for £280 using the SAVE-0250 discount code. Thanks to everyone for the advice.

[Elan Remford]

Just to play devils advocate; no one can tell the difference between a 10-20 sigma and a 10-22 canon on a print that I know of.

If this is so, why spend several hundred dollars more then? Just for name? Where exactly and how is the canon better then any of the UWAs on the market? Without an exact and specific answer that is testable consistently, then spending more for nothing doesn't seem like an effective use of ones terrible short supply of post-tax dollars. :p

Actually, several very valid reasons exist; and yes, it is often very possible to distinguish the Sigma 10-20 from others.

The 10-22 will retain better resale value whether sold outright or traded through a dealer. No, it will not retain the exceptional value of an L series lens, but the difference in favor of the Canon is very typically substantially better. It simply depreciates much more slowly.

Canon's EF-S 10-22 has better potential for long-term viability and forward compatibility with the platform for which it was both optically and electronically engineered.

Although the 10-20 is a fine lens in its own right, the extra 2mm of focal length on the long end, at that length, are substantial. Depending on what the next longest lens in a bag is, this may be less desirable in terms of overall coverage and in terms of lens changes.

Finally, the 10-20 is like most Sigma lenses in its conveyance of a warmer "golden" cast to its images. Some like it. Some don't. Personally, anything that is farther from "true" is less desirable.

E.

[dignacio]

I was in the same situation last month. It came down to the Sigma 10-20 or the Canon 10-22. The reason I went with Canon is because I found a used 10-22 in excellent condition and paid a lot less than the retail price. The image quality is awesome. I'm sure the Sigma would have been a good performer too. Very close in performance just not in price.

[factoryphoto]

Just curious, I see that about 99% of the people on this thread use a rebel/350 camera .. I am not to clear when it comes to wide angle stuff so forgive my ignorance... I have a Canon Mark II N.. Will the sigam 10-22 or/and canon 10-20mm work on my camera? I cant find this answer anywhere

[farrukh]

Just curious, I see that about 99% of the people on this thread use a rebel/350 camera .. I am not to clear when it comes to wide angle stuff so forgive my ignorance... I have a Canon Mark II N.. Will the sigam 10-22 or/and canon 10-20mm work on my camera? I cant find this answer anywhere

Only Sigma will fit on your camera. The only way you can fit Canon is that you will have to do some sawyer job to alter its rear part.

[scotttnz]

Go the Sigma!

Seriously both are great lenses. The resons I went with the Sigma are:

1) Another local POTN member had one, and kindly let me use it for a couple of weeks. I really liked it! Well built, great IQ, and 10mm is heaps of fun!
2) When the other member upgraded to a 5D we agreed on a fair price.
3) Even new the Sigma is significantly cheaper than the Canon.
4) The Sigma includes a lens hood (and pouch, but I don't use that)

The Canon is faster (f stops) but 99% of the time I am at f8 or more for landscapes so this is insignificant to me.

We are spoiled for choice now with wide angles!

[xxbodkinxx]

Another vote for sigma, I got mine today and MAN i am impressed.

[marctwo]

Got the Sigma in the end and really like it. I think I made the right choice as it gives me much more flexibility to be able to fit it on either body. Great build and IQ, very happy.