canon 10-22 v sigma 10-20

looking to buy one of the above lens.any advice welcome being pulled more to Sigma.?

I think there are actually two SIgma 10-20... one with variable aperture and another more expensive one with an f3.5 throughout the range. Also, Sigma has updated the cheaper lens at least once, though I don't know when...

It was a couple years ago now so I don't know if it was the same as the current version, but I compared the Siggy with the variable aperture with the Canon 10-22 closely and decided the Canon was the better lens for IQ. That was the most important factor to me. The Siggy seemed to offer a little better build quality. And a whole lot lower price (under $500 compared to nearly $850 by the time you buy the Canon and the separately sold lens hood for it).

But I ended up buying Tokina 12-24/4 for a variety of reasons.

The Canon is overpriced. Go for the Sigma 4-5.6, you won't be missing much.

I believe the Canon is the better lens. The only way you're going to decide which of these work for you is to try both of them, and then pick the one that fits your requirements. I happen to believe you get what you pay for, and my experience with Sigma lenses has not done anything to change my mind.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 Sigma better

Tried them both and went with the Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6. Quality, price, warranty, hood, case edge to Sigma. Image quality was a virtual tossup. Easy decision and one that I am glad I made!

+1 for Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 - I really like this lens.

Sigma now has a newer model, 8-16mm, which is both wider and according to photozone.de better than the Canon both optically and mechanically.

canonistul wrote in post #12678471
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 Sigma better

The Canon looks better to me. It's a good thing since I just got mine today.

Just bought the sigma 10-20mm a couple days ago. I am very happy with it...IMO the canon is overpriced!

Sigma.

I like the wide end for both of these lenses, but prefer a longer focal length at the long end. I got the Tokina 12-24 f4 a week ago, and it is a great lens. Personally, if money is not an issue, I'd rather have the Canon than the Sigma, if only for the 22 mm at the long end.

I tried both at length, and ended up with the Sigma 10-20 and never looked back.

Highly recommended!

sralf4 wrote in post #12678734
The Canon looks better to me. It's a good thing since I just got mine today.

that's the poorer of the two sigmas though...but now stop it down to f8(what a lot of folks do for landscapes) and compare the canon to the variable aperture sigma
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

see much of a difference?...now look at the wallets...one of them is going to have $350 more in it...

canonistul wrote in post #12678471
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0 Sigma better

The canon looks better at every focal length there.

I tried the sigma 10-20, and I didn't like it too much. I normally like sigma lenses very much, but there was something about the 10-20 that didn't click. I went with the 10-22 and I'm very happy with my choice, the pictures I've gotten from it are better than the shots I took with the sigma in pretty much every way. That said, I may have tried a bad copy of the sigma, I'm not sure, and when I bought the canon, it was on sale at $680 so the difference in price wasn't too much.

One reason to consider the canon is the flare performance, its simply unmatched by any 3rd party UWA out there, and flare performance, to me, is a very important consideration. If this doesn't matter much to you, then the sigma may be the better choice, as in terms of IQ, all current UWAs should be quite close, and the sigma is quite a bit cheaper.

DreDaze wrote in post #12679738
that's the poorer of the two sigmas though...but now stop it down to f8(what a lot of folks do for landscapes) and compare the canon to the variable aperture sigma
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

see much of a difference?...now look at the wallets...one of them is going to have $350 more in it...

It looks marginally better, but I wanted better flare performance and I got mine mint for $645. A deal I couldn't pass up.