Help! Which WA/UWA?

Guys,

I need an honest opinion on what to buy as a UWA lens. Photography is just a hobby for me today and may become my work someday in the future. Looking at my paltry lens collection, one can see I'm really missing a good WA/UWA. I try to never shoot with the kit lens, but at times I just have to. So the next time I travel > 500 miles somewhere to shoot, I want a good WA/UWA when I need it

So what would you suggest, given my existing collection?

The poll is just for UWA, but pls do recommend a WA if you think I should get that instead.

Thanks so much in advance!
aRJun

PS: I'm sorry for the typo. It's Sigma 10-20 in the poll, not 10-22.

The sigma 10-20 is by far and away the best value here. Excellent build too. there are marginal image quality differences between it and the Canon 10-22 - but as you say it's just a hobby. If you have the cash and aren't worried about spending it, the canon is the best lens. But not the best value - and the quality difference is teensy weensy.

When I'm looking for an ultra wide, it will most likely be the 10-20 from sigma that floats my boat.

steved110 wrote in post #2743105
The sigma 10-20 is by far and away the best value here. Excellent build too. there are marginal image quality differences between it and the Canon 10-22 - but as you say it's just a hobby. If you have the cash and aren't worried about spending it, the canon is the best lens. But not the best value - and the quality difference is teensy weensy.

When I'm looking for an ultra wide, it will most likely be the 10-20 from sigma that floats my boat.

Thanks for posting on this. This confirms the article in Popular Photography - Apr 2006. I think the same, but what do I do about 20-28?

aRJun wrote in post #2743146
Thanks for posting on this. This confirms the article in Popular Photography - Apr 2006. I think the same, but what do I do about 20-28?

4, 6 or 8mm gap, at those focal lenghts, probably won't be that big of a deal. It's probably not very often that you need exactly 25 or 27mm FL to get the ideal shot.

I don't think you can go wrong with any of the "Big 3" crop UWAs - Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24. I chose the Tokina mostly for the constant aperture and sturdy build. At the time I purchased it, it was slightly less than the Sigma, as well. Recently, the prices I've seen are about equal to one another.

I'd go with the 10-22

The Sigma 10-20 without a doubt. First, it's a great lens. On par optically with the EF-S 10-22. Secondly, it's built very solidly. Thirdly, you get a great warranty with it. Fourthly, a regular CPL works on it, no need for a slim CPL and the extra bucks for it. Fifthly it comes with a nice hood and pouch. Last but not least, it just takes damn good pics.

I bought the Sigma 10-20 in October 2005. I bought it based on the excellent reviews it received in Popular Photography, Shutterbug and Outdoor Photographer. I have no regrets. A lens with this capability is absolutely necessary when taking pictures in small towns and villages in Europe. There can be some distortion in the shots, depending how level you hold the camera and what angle you are taking the picture, but I have never had a problem with it using Photoshop Elements or Photoshop. I have four other Canon lenses including the EFS 17-55mm 2.8, but this Sigma lens is a winner.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2743479
The Sigma 10-20 without a doubt. First, it's a great lens. On par optically with the EF-S 10-22. Secondly, it's built very solidly. Thirdly, you get a great warranty with it. Fourthly, a regular CPL works on it, no need for a slim CPL and the extra bucks for it. Fifthly it comes with a nice hood and pouch. Last but not least, it just takes damn good pics.

Thanks. Makes a lot of sense to buy this. But I'm still not sold on the idea of pulling out the 18-55 kit lens for 20-28. I never want to pull it out again!It's made so many of my photos (at great locations) soft!

Btw, what CPL do you use with it? Amazon hardly has any good ones (<$100) for 77mm.

Although MY preference was for the Canon, I voted Sigma for YOUR purposes, as you describe them. I think others advising the same have said all I would have said. I wanted the Canon's superior contrast and resistance to flare, but the extra price makes it a tough choice. For more occasional use, it wouldn't be worth it.

Well...the one thing that I'm also looking for is building a good collection of lenses...I want another body (maybe another XT - body's just about $500)...and I want all lenses that I have to complement each other...meaning if I put the UWA on one body, the other body should have the next available range I'm looking for (hopefully the 28-75). And if I'm not shooting wide, I'd want one of the bodies to have the 28-75 while I use the 70-300 on the other one. That's how I want to shoot in the near future.

So, considering all of this, which lens do you think I should get? If your answer is still the Sigma, then Sigma it is for me. I totally trust you guys with this...after all, I learnt most of my stuff right here on POTN

Also, what should be my next body (sub $1000 pls)? Another Rebel XT or the new 400D?

Thanks so much!
aRJun

Was just going through some reviews..what do you guys think about this?

Taken from Lightrules test on pbase:

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

I've had the Canon, Tokina, and Sigma 12-24. Of these, the Canon is the best, Sigma is worst. I just don't have a choice other than the Sigma on my 1D MkII

Lani Kai - I've been looking very hard at the Sigma 12-24 because I still like to shoot film. Can you tell me what it is about the Sigma that disappoints you?

I'm in the same boat, the marginal difference in quality and massive price saving in the UK for the Sigma 10-20, it wins clearly. I could just about import a 50mm f/1.4 for the difference!


Edit: Don't forget you get given a lens hood with the Sigma! Even more money for Canon's.

Marginal? I could tell immediately from those pictures and that was even without looking at the tiny text. The Canon's worth the extra $$ for me. Those Sigma shots are appalling.

If I had to read the text to tell, or if I'd guessed wrong, I'd consider it. But those test results are hard to argue with. I'm not a Sigma basher, I owned the 70-200 and 50-500 and liked both of them. The Bigma pwn3d me.. but that is another story for another day

As for what is 'value', it clearly depends on the eye of the beholder. You can be a hobbyist and yet demand very high IQ. If you're going to travel all that way, the cost of the lens is incremental vs the amount of time and money you're spending on making the journey..