Sigma 10-20 v Canon 10-22 Tested

Just posted at my site, feel free to comment here or there:

http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/uwatest

Thanks for doing this fstopjojo. That certain clarify some of the questions i have about these two lenses.
Interesting. The paper test shots favor the EX but the real life test shots favor EF-S. That's my observation.

Nice test, JoJo.

I see better (or at least different) color on the Canon, similar sharpness between the two, and a fair amount of flare on the Sigma.

Did you get a chance to test for distortion or CA? I may have missed that portion - I do skim sometimes.

Thanks a bunch for that comparison between the two jojo _ good work. Looks to me like the Canon is the winner between these two copies. Its on my next to buy list.

Yeh, the Canon really impresses me. Build-wise, it's similar to the 1785IS (so it feels a bit cheap and plasticky), but optically it's a ringer. And while having USM/HSM on these UWA lenses isn't a huge factor, the ring USM is really f-a-s-t.

Tom, as for CA, both are VERY well-controlled (better than the Tokie in this regard). I have a lot of shots in bright sunlight against white or shiny objects and they both perform remarkably well (Sigma very slight, Canon almost none/zilch). Both have very similar distortion performance as well at the 10mm wide open settings; not stellar but very good/acceptabe. At 20mm for both it's well-controlled; nothing out of the ordinary.

I have a hard time justifying an EFS lens costing over $700 (especially when Sigma's costs $440). But for those that can afford (and dont mind spending the cash), this lens delivers serious output. I think the EX is easily worth the money, maybe a better "value", but optically I think the Canon is a tad "pixel-peeping" better.

Thanks for the excellent work, I know what you mean about the USM speed, my 24-70L seams horridly slow compared to the 10-22mm EF-S. I LOVE using the 10-22mm if for no other reason then the USM.

The Canon looks better to me...

Thank fStopJojo!

That's some really nice PP you did on the sigma version of the picture too, would you mind telling us what you did to achieve such excellent results?

Great review, I always visit your Pbase site for comparison shots. To me the main difference in the samples is that the canon has more contrast, especially in the brick wall shots. But PP can fix this.

I feel good about my purchase and the fact I have saved some money to buy another lens.

That about sums it up for me. Both seem to do a good enough job for my tastes. If people want to peep then get the Canon; if you don't care then save a significant sum of money and get the Sigma. Usual story I suppose. Personally, I'd still buy the Tokina but any would do.

Good review, it makes me feel much better about my choice to buy the Sigma and save some money.

It's interesting that all the emails and comments from folks that have the canon are "i'm glad i have it", and those that have the sigma are "i'm glad i have it."

as for the PP work, it was very quick and dirty. basic levels adjustment, slight USM, and a quick dab of nik color efex's "blue GND filter"

thanks jojo, you always provide great test results.
your test of Sigma 24-70 vs canon made me to go with Sigma.

But in this 10-20mm test, Canon is clearly better than Sigma. and there is not much price diffrence between these 2.

I'll buy EF-S 10-20 when time will come.

thanks for doing this - I am planning to get the 10-22 EF-S as my next lens, so it's good to see what it can do. the sigma does interest me, but I just have a thing for Canon...

Thanks for an interesting comparison. An UWA is most likely going to be my next lens purchase and your review is very helpful.

I have borrowed the sigma from a fellow POTN member and am enjoying it a lot. I think I would prefer to go with the canon, but find it hard to justify the extra cost!