canon or sigma lens

Help needed - i want a good landscape lens for my 350D

my options are

Canon EFS 10-22mmF4.5-5.6

Sigma 10-20F4-5.6

or

Sigma 12-24mmF4-5.6

there is basically 200pounds in the price ranges but the issue here is quality

any help much appreciated

If money is a concern go with sigma if money is not a concern go with canon.

There are a couple of threads, active right now, showing examples of images from UWA lenses. If you inspect images from these threads, you will see that all of your prospective lenses, as well as the Tokina 12-24, are capable of providing high-quality photos.

There have been several threads between the 10-22 and 10-20. Many are in favor of the Sigma as was I. The Canon is compared to the L series. To me Sigma is sharper, but color is a little warmer.

BradT0517 wrote in post #2230153
If money is a concern go with sigma if money is not a concern go with canon.

Keep in mind, however, that the Sigma 12-24 is about the same cost as the Canon 10-22. It is, though, FF compatible.

Check my gear before taking my comments at their face value.

I can tell you that I am really happy with Sigma. The EX Quality is outstanding, and it is currently the lens that is always on my pocket. I have bought it less than a month ago, so I have yet to take some photo tests and post them.

I did have a thread in this forum about this same subject, and got a lot of positive reviews on the Canon 10-22, as well as the Tokina. I am a Sigma kind of guy, and for the money I went instead for Sigma rather than Canon, it was a toss up (well, the best lens for you is the one that makes you happy, and for me Sigma's metal construction is a ton more comforting that the all plastic construction of the Canon). No lens is clearly better than the other, but Sigma hit the spot for me. (BTW, I did get the EFS lens, no Full Frame Support, but I can live with that, since I will keep one 30D for at least 90k more actuations, and probably even further).

I hope this helps, and I will get some tests photos to post here this evening.

Cheerios,

thanks everyone for quick responses

sigma is looking good to me

looking forward to seeing your test shots Mario

cheers Mark

I cant comment on those actual lenses but Sigma isnt a make that you go for because you cant afford a Canon lens, ive had some great results from my Sigma 17-70 & it doesnt cost as much as a Canon equivalent, sure it might not have USM but its fast enough to track a car whizzing past at a fair old pace so thats good enough for me.

My Sigma 17-70 makes a pretty decent macro lens too, I took this photo earlier on today, I cant imagine how an L lens could be any better than this.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

BradT0517 wrote in post #2230153
If money is a concern go with sigma if money is not a concern go with canon.

Ditto

Tee Why wrote in post #2230252
Ditto

Ditto too.

LightRules wrote in post #2230304
Ditto too.

Ditto 3

runninmann wrote in post #2230161
Keep in mind, however, that the Sigma 12-24 is about the same cost as the Canon 10-22. It is, though, FF compatible.

This is quite true but I have heard that it has some vignetting

mws3 wrote in post #2230145
Help needed - i want a good landscape lens for my 350D: Canon EFS 10-22mmF4.5-5.6 Sigma 10-20F4-5.6 or Sigma 12-24mmF4-5.6

You have a 350D so get either one of the 10mm-APS C options. They handle better than the Sigma DG lens and optically are a bit better too. If you had a FF body, then the choice would be obvious in the other direction. Try them out if possible and see which you like.

I quite enjoy my sigma, especially since I got it for $425.

I have the 10-22 and LOVE IT.