Sigma 10-20 vs canon 10-22 UWA

Please compare these 2 lenses. Right now at b&h the sigma is 450 and Adorama has the canon for $650. From reading the canon is the better of the 2 lenses i guess what i am asking is the canon $200 better?

Personal preference I guess. Each have strengths and weaknesses. To me the cost was worth it.

I had a Sigma 10-20 for some time and it's a nice lens. My copy had some de-centering though, but I lived with it.

If you want the Canon brand hood to go along with that lens, add another $33 to the price. Sigma includes a hood with theirs.

I was a very happy Sigma user unless I was stopped down with very bright lights prominently placed in the frame. I didn't like the flare in that situation. I don't know if the Canon lens would do the same thing.

f/22

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

My biggest complaint about the sigma is that it is a tripod lens......duh. I am not a pro but i shoot interiors for work(to help sell what I am pro at) and the sigma is super nice at f8. Of course the Canon as well wouldn't be handheld either I just hate lugging a tripod into people's homes? I have used it a lot for artsy hobby pics and flare is there, but it is not a deal breaker for me. Look at it this way, with the b and h deal on the 85 1.8, you could almost get that and the sigma for the same price as the canon......I put my extra savings into the 17-50 and that lens is my favorite. If you get a god copy it is a hell of a deal on a very adequate wide angle, it is just super slow.

^^what are you talking about it being a 'tripod lens'...you can easily handhold shots

i choose the sigma, cause i didn't see the point of paying nearly double the price
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/uwatest
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om/article.php?l=en&ar​ticle=34

Both very nice lens and as noted really a matter of preference, mine being the Canon. The 10-22 gave me very excellent results using it solely inside the dimly lit WWII museum.

Nick3434 wrote in post #13601754
My biggest complaint about the sigma is that it is a tripod lens......duh.

???

I use my 10-22 handheld all the time.

I've used both the sigma 10-20 and the canon 10-22, and I now have the canon because I like it more than the sigma overall. The sigma isn't too far behind, but its just lacking that "something". If money is a real concern, you'll be happy with the sigma. But for $650, the canon is definitely worth it.

Sirrith wrote in post #13601940
???

I use my 10-22 handheld all the time.

I've used both the sigma 10-20 and the canon 10-22, and I now have the canon because I like it more than the sigma overall. The sigma isn't too far behind, but its just lacking that "something". If money is a real concern, you'll be happy with the sigma. But for $650, the canon is definitely worth it.

Glad to hear that, I jumped on the 10-22 deal last week and it should arrive tomorrow. Already posted my Sigma in the sell forum hoping that I will like the Canon better.

No optical difference. No usability difference. My four copies of the 10-20/4-5.6 were all decentered, three severely. Canon lenses hold value better on the used market. I'd buy the 10-22 without another thought.

DreDaze wrote in post #13601849
^^what are you talking about it being a 'tripod lens'...you can easily handhold shots...

I don't get the tripod reference either, as I have no difficulty using a UWA for handheld shots at ridiculously low shutter speeds. I've never shot the 10-20, but I own the 10-22 and have never regretted spending the money for it.

I can't speak for the Sigma having never used it. However, my wife and I recently went on a trip for our 25th anniversary. Since I didn't have a wide lens for my 50D I rented the Canon 10-22mm for the trip. I was so taken with the results that I bought a used one from a member on this forum a few weeks before Christmas.

Sorry, tripod for what I primarily need it for. I have a marble and granite company and find myself often needing an f8 or f12 aperture for the interior shot I need in a room that has whatever for lighting. I meant tripod lens for my use, and why i said th canon wouldn't change that for me. I did shoot a bathroom recently handheld but braced the camera against door frames etc. and shot at f5 since the rooms were small and got some sharp images, but my exif showed a lot of 1/8-1/15 shutter speeds. I also go for crisper shots so I try to keep the iso at 200-400.

Why not invest in a flash and bounce it.

It is on my list, but there are generally a good amount of large mirrors in bathrooms and highly reflective stainless steel surfaces so I am not sure how flashes fare near shiny and reflective stuff but I need to get a speed light and learn how to properly use it for sure. I dunno, longer shutter times inside tend to render the best interior design pics. Even in magazines you can tell by lights that many times they are shot at a small aperture without artificial light. Lighting is a big part of interior design so you want to draw out what is on rather than diminish it artificially I guess.