Talk me out of a Sigma UWA

So, I just put in an insurance claim for a wrecked Tokina 11-16mm lens and I need a replacement.

I'd say that I am currently looking at three options:

Sigma 8-16mm
Canon 10-22mm
Tokina 11-16mm

I really liked the Tokina but am actually looking harder at the other two than I am at replacing it.

I've read the reviews, looked at the wonderful threads on here and elsewhere.

Basically, I'm thinking like this...

They both produce high quality images (more of a function of the photographer and location than anything IMHO). The Sigma is wider angle and 2mm on the wide end is actually pretty significant (but they are both wider than the Tokina so I'll probably be happy either way). The Canon "might" have better resale value but the Sigma seems to have a pretty good reputation. Either way, my gear gets well used so resale value is a bit of a moot point.

I'm not planning to make a switch to FF any time soon or at least, if I do I won't be selling my 7D any time soon so the whole EF-s thing doesn't bother me.

Lack of filters for the Siggy might be an issue but I'm pretty comfortable stacking exposures when that is appropriate. I'll save my ND grads for use with my 24-105.

So, give me some thoughts. Why should I go with the Canon?

I'm not going to make this a poll because I'm genuinely interested in peoples opinions.

The toss up for me would be The Sigma 10-20mm or the Canon 10-22mm? I had a Sigma 10-20mm on a Nikon D300 a few years ago and was mighty impressed with it.

If it is truly a toss up, I would go with the Canon. My 10-22 served me over the years. As you noted, it's really nice standardizing on 77mm filters.

I had focusing problems with two of three Sigma lens I've tried over the years and am not crazy about the color cast on their older lens. OTOH, since we're talking UWA, there's plenty of DOF to the point that you don't have to worry about critcal focusing much. Plus Sigma quality has improved.

If I had to choose again I'd choose the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 mainly because of the constant aperture, though either of the Sigmas' are steller performers, and both take 77mm filters well.

I have the Sigma 10-20mm and it's a pretty cool lens. I woul never talk anyone out of getting that lens. It's a great deal and a great lens!

Why make it harder than it has to be?

You had the 11-16 (excellent lens)
Do you need / want to go wider? Yes = Sigma 8-16mm. No = Tokina 11-16mm
Do you need / want to have more reach? Yes = Canon 10-22mm. No = Tokina 11-16mm

Personally I'd get either the 11-16 or 12-24.

rjx wrote in post #15686376
Why make it harder than it has to be?

You had the 11-16 (excellent lens)
Do you need / want to go wider? Yes = Sigma 8-16mm. No = Tokina 11-16mm
Do you need / want to have more reach? Yes = Canon 10-22mm. No = Tokina 11-16mm

Personally I'd get either the 11-16 or 12-24.

+1
This is exactly what I would do.
The tokina is already one of the best (or even best UWA) so ask yourself the questions above.

As you've owned the 11-16 you'll know if, like me, you found the terrible flare in daylight very restricting. If so, you really need to try the 10-22 - it will be a revelation.

I tried the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma 10-20 and found they both performed very well. I went with the Sigma because it was $250 cheaper, came with a hood and a case. I can honestly say that I'm very pleased with the results I get from the Siggy.

James P wrote in post #15686857
I tried the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma 10-20 and found they both performed very well. I went with the Sigma because it was $250 cheaper, came with a hood and a case. I can honestly say that I'm very pleased with the results I get from the Siggy.

Ah, but from the freudian slip in your sig - "Sigma 10-22" - we can tell that you secretly lust after the Canon.

not really considering the sigma 10-20. Might as well just get the Canon for that focal length range.

I don't really need to go longer. Having a gap of 16-24mm is just fine with me.

I don't "need" to go wider but having the option is very intriguing. Might not get used alot but would be nice to play around with. Problem is determining if that ability to go super wide offsets the lack of ND filter capability (I've seen the link for rigging up a ND system so it is sort of an option I guess).

Honestly, this might come down to a coin toss.

Thanks for the thoughts folks. Keep 'em coming.

I'd say Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 - it does a great job (sharpness, flare control, etc). I don't see any reason to pay more for Canon. I found that for me 10mm is as far as I'd ever want to go, so 8mm would be a waste for me. Especially given that I love to use my 10-stop ND filter with the Siggy, for multiple minutes day time exposure (I doubt it is realistic to mimic that with stacked exposures - you'll need a thousand of shots!)

I'd only consider the Tokina if you are into star trails - faster aperture is very important there.

Don't buy it... seriously, don't buy it...

Did that work? Have I convinced you?

But seriously, I think rjx summarised it quite nicely!

I would suggest renting the lenses in question and seeing what works best for you.

Copidosoma wrote in post #15687326
I don't "need" to go wider but having the option is very intriguing. Might not get used alot but would be nice to play around with. Problem is determining if that ability to go super wide offsets the lack of ND filter capability (I've seen the link for rigging up a ND system so it is sort of an option I guess).

how often are you using grad ND filters? I'd go wider if you're fine with losing 16-24mm, but that's where you were at before.

you don't 'need' to go wider...but you clearly want to...just do it...it won't hurt

oh wait, we were supposed to talk you out of the 8-16mm?