Ok looking at an landscape lens....

[Ferco]

Ok I am looking into a landscape lens but am torn...

The three main lenses I have in mind (I'm still open to suggestions)

Canon 17-40mm L f/4

Canon 10-22mm

Sigma 10-20mm

Ok so the image quality- have had a good look on the lens archive but they all seem very good quality...

Price: Around about the same with the Sigma having the slight edge... but does that mean less quality... I would be willing to spend the extra on the L glass or even the canon 10-22mm but obviously would prefer not to if it is unnecessary and can spend it on other goodies...

Can anyone help me? I will try to get into Jessops to try them but they usually don't have them in stock...

Bearing in mind this would be going onto my 350D - don't know if that makes a difference...

Thanks for looking

[LightRules]

There's a big difference between 17mm and 10mm (70% wider FOV). Otherwise they are all tremendous lenses.

[ghms421]

If your planning on going FF: 17-40

If your on a budget: Sigma 10-20

Otherwise: Canon 10-22

[Ferco]

What exactly does FF mean... lol soz
Hmm... looks like the canon 10-22mm is going to be the best option

[René Damkot]

Is the kit lens wide enough? If not, the 17-40 won't be either.
Then again, I would buy the 17-50 EF-s over the 17-40 for a Rebel...
Otherwise, I agree with the above posts.

[LightRules]

What exactly does FF mean... lol soz
Hmm... looks like the canon 10-22mm is going to be the best option

FF = full frame (e.g., 5D, 1Ds)

The 10-22 is very nice. See my comparo here from a year ago http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uwatest

[kato1]

I think it depends on not just your short term plans, but your long term plans too.
I opted for the 17-40L. Why?
I find for most wide angle shots I am likely to take it is adequate.
I can't use an EFS 17-50 because I shoot with a 10D.
If I eventually upgrade to a FF camera eg. 5D, then it's certainly wide enough.
In the interim I have a superb lens that will grow with me.

[LightRules]

I think it depends on not just your short term plans, but your long term plans too...If I eventually upgrade to a FF camera

I'd disagree. I don't think one should "live for the future" vis-a-vis photography. There is way too much difference between 10mm and 17mm. If the OP wants really wide, he should get a 10mm UWA for his 1.6x. If he needs to later on sell it, so be it. It's not a big deal. But 10mm right now is a big deal.

[august23]

I agree with LightRules on this one. Can't live saying "well if I go FF in the next year or two I should live without 7mm on the wide end because of it"

Get the 10-22, you won't be sorry, I guarentee it. I just looked through the glass at 10 and then at 17.....GIGANTIC difference. I wouldn't dare settle on a 17-40 for WA even if I was going FF next week.

[Madweasel]

I second the advice to look through your kit lens and see if you think you need a wider angle. The 10-20 or 10-22 go VERY wide, which may be too much for a lot of landscape stuff (although of course at the longer end they are a much more modest angle). I have the Canon 10-22 and have been very pleased with it. I can also vouch for the quality of the 17-40, but I see lots of people on here are saying the newer 17-55 EF-S is even better. That might be the way to head if your kit lens gives you the angle you want but you want a higher quality.

[angryhampster]

If you want a super-wide landscape lens, you would be more than satisfied with a Sigma 10-20 or a Canon 10-22. Both are fantastic lenses.

[BigBlueDodge]

From that list, Canon 10-22. If you wanted to save a little, then Tokina 12-24

[Ferco]

Am starting to think about the Sigma... Why spend the extra like £50 or whatever when the Sigma is just as good, right? I don't quite think I'm at the stage where the difference between the canon and sigma will affect my photos lol.

[angryhampster]

Am starting to think about the Sigma... Why spend the extra like £50 or whatever when the Sigma is just as good, right? I don't quite think I'm at the stage where the difference between the canon and sigma will affect my photos lol.




No one is :lol:

[august23]

Why spend the extra like £50 or whatever when the Sigma is just as good, right?

Canon is 2/3 stop faster. Canon has 2mm more on the tele. Canon has better lens caps (yes, the sigmas are VERY annoying). Canon has better contrast. Canon doesn't have a "right side of the lens soft" issue like Sigma.

That's a good enough reason for me to spend the extra.

All that said, the 10-20 is still amazing glass, and will give you just as good results. It's more of a comfort thing getting the canon.

[Ranger123]

I tried both the 10-20 and the 10-22. Finally settled on the 10-22 because I got a good deal on a new one. Compared to the kit lens - well - it is wide but very useful in close quarters.

I think you'll have a good time no matter what lens you'll choose. But as August 23 points out there are some advantages to the 10-22. However I didn't really see the difference when I tried them out...

[whoever]

Ferco - I think theres more than £50 difference in it.
The cheapest I can see the Canon 10-22 for is about £382.99
The Sigma 10-20 can be picked up for £270 ish. So we're talking about a difference of more like £100 here.

Please let me know if you can source the Canon for less as I'm also looking at these two lenses.

Am starting to think about the Sigma... Why spend the extra like £50 or whatever when the Sigma is just as good, right? I don't quite think I'm at the stage where the difference between the canon and sigma will affect my photos lol.

[Throlkim]

Is the right-side softness issue that prevalent in the Sigma? I'm thinking about buying one myself - £100 is a lot of money to pay extra for the Canon.
Should I buy it locally and test the lens first, and if I happen to have problems with it, will Sigma fix the softness?

[Ferco]

Ferco - I think theres more than £50 difference in it.
The cheapest I can see the Canon 10-22 for is about £382.99
The Sigma 10-20 can be picked up for £270 ish. So we're talking about a difference of more like £100 here.

Please let me know if you can source the Canon for less as I'm also looking at these two lenses.

Wow didn't realise that lol- pretty sure I will go for the Siggy now lol

Thanks

[Ferco]

Canon is 2/3 stop faster. Canon has 2mm more on the tele. Canon has better lens caps (yes, the sigmas are VERY annoying). Canon has better contrast. Canon doesn't have a "right side of the lens soft" issue like Sigma.

That's a good enough reason for me to spend the extra.

All that said, the 10-20 is still amazing glass, and will give you just as good results. It's more of a comfort thing getting the canon.

Though looking at that- ... :confused: hmm... difficult; Just now I'm thinking- 'splash out the extra cash; you cheapskate!' lol but then my Wallet cries every time I go near it lol.

This will take more consideration that I thought.

[Chris L]

Canon is 2/3 stop faster. Canon has 2mm more on the tele. Canon has better lens caps (yes, the sigmas are VERY annoying). Canon has better contrast. Canon doesn't have a "right side of the lens soft" issue like Sigma.

Hmmm..on my camera f/3.5 to f/4 is only 1/3 of a stop difference. Given that both lenses are sharp wide open and the OP's intended use for this lens is landscapes I can't see the relevance of 1/3 of a stop?

I own/have owned various Canon and Sigma lenses and have never had any problems with any of the lens caps. I've never gone to my bag and found the lens cap has fallen off and so don't understand what the problem is that goes towards justfiying ~£125-150 (including hood) difference.

Having never shot with a 10-22 I can't comment on any differences in contrast.

As for the "issue" of softness on the right side....well, I've owned a 10-20 for a year now and I know of 5 friends who also own them and not one of us has ever had this "issue" at any aperature.

Though looking at that- ... :confused: hmm... difficult; Just now I'm thinking- 'splash out the extra cash; you cheapskate!' lol but then my Wallet cries every time I go near it lol.

This will take more consideration that I thought.

For me the cost doesn't justify any difference you'd see in image quality. Both these lenses are capable of producing stunning images when used properly.

Since offering subjective advice seems to be the trend these days I'll finish off by adding that IMO the Sigma EX range *feel* better put together than Canon's EF-S lenses. The focus ring on my 10-20 EX feels smoother than the one on my 17-55 EF-S. Of course this has *ab-so-lute-ly* no effect on image quality, the 10-22, 17-55 f/2.8 and 60 f/2.8 are all optically superb.

[Tony-S]

Canon doesn't have a "right side of the lens soft" issue like Sigma.

Can you elaborate further on this comment?