Budget wide angle

In doubt wether I should pick the canon 10-22 or the siggy (F4-5.6).
It'll mainly be used for landscape work at F11, so distortion and wide open sharpness is of little importance.
Will there be visible difference in IQ between the 2 at F11?
Is the canon worth the extra money for the better color, flare resistance and contrast?
Is the sigma reliable enough to buy used?

Thanks in advance

Here is some reading on them:

Canon: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Sigma: http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….6-EX-DC-Lens-Review.aspx

You have the ability to compare the two, and other lenses also.
I have used the canon (a friend has one), and its stunning. But have not used the Sigma.

jefzor wrote in post #16095604
In doubt wether I should pick the canon 10-22 or the siggy (F4-5.6).
It'll mainly be used for landscape work at F11

Why on earth would you want to shoot at f11? DoF on an UWA is so huge that there's no need for tiny apertures.

I had the opportunity to try both lenses before I bought and I chose the Sigma. The IQ was nearly identical, but the Siggy came with a hood, a case and was a couple of hundred dollars cheaper. I have not been disappointed with its performance.

At 15mm on aps-c and focus at 10 feet:
f/8 - DOF from 3 feet to infinity
f/16 - DOF from 2 feet to infinity, and you are well into the DLA range on APSc.

I have a 10-22 and don't think I've ever stopped it down past f/8. I like it, but haven't compared it to any of the competitors.

hollis_f wrote in post #16095688
Why on earth would you want to shoot at f11? DoF on an UWA is so huge that there's no need for tiny apertures.

maybe he wants to flirt with diffraction !

ed rader wrote in post #16097334
maybe he wants to flirt with diffraction !

Excuse the OT comments, please. More beautiful shots, Ed. Thanks. They are inspiring. Someday I'll post some shots of the local corn, or wait... maybe some soybeans.

hollis_f wrote in post #16095688
Why on earth would you want to shoot at f11? DoF on an UWA is so huge that there's no need for tiny apertures.

Tiny apertures at f/22 make lights look awesome. Instead of a circle, they look like stars!

if you're stopping down to f8, i don't think you'll be able to tell the difference between the two...if you plan on shooting non stop into the sun, the canon might be better...personally i'd rather have money in my pocket

the sigma is nearly half the price of the canon...and there's no way the canon is double the lens...

Well, I'll shoot at F8 instead of F11 then, I falsely assumed needing F11, but forgot about the extra DOF that an UWA gives.

Thank you for the input, everyone. I'll probably go for the sigma then. I don't think I can justify the extra cost for the canon, given the subjects I'm planning to use it for.

jefzor wrote in post #16098297
Well, I'll shoot at F8 instead of F11 then, I falsely assumed needing F11, but forgot about the extra DOF that an UWA gives.

I don't even go up to f8 most of the time. According to FoCal Pro, my 10-22 is sharpest wide-open at 10mm. And I'm not alone - LINK