Wide Angle. Canon, Sigma

I do not have a wide angle lens for my 40D as of yet. I keep pushing back the wide angle for other equipment.
I do not have any non Canon lenses in my arsenal. I have heard good things about the Sigma 10-20. How does this compare to the Canon 10-22 and which would you recommend?
Thanks.

Here is my direct comparison of the two. In all honesty, both are good lenses with it's pro/con's. If the cost difference is not a factor, I'd go for Canon, if it is, I'd go for Sigma. Having said that, I'd go for a Tokina 11-16 which I had as well.

I have had a Tokina 12-24 which nicely extends my Canon 24-85 towards the wide end. I just love this lens, even though it requires a bit of tweaking during RAW conversion to keep the chromatic aberrations in check.
You should check it out as well.

canon all the way

I love my 10-22, too bad i have to sell it now since i went 5d

agunther wrote in post #7175104
I have had a Tokina 12-24 which nicely extends my Canon 24-85 towards the wide end. I just love this lens, even though it requires a bit of tweaking during RAW conversion to keep the chromatic aberrations in check.
You should check it out as well.

Definitely check out the tokina 12-24. Solid build and great image quality. I rarely have any problems with CA, but if I do, its easy to fix as previously mentioned. This lens is a steal.

The 10-22 is an excellent choice, and probably has better QC than the sigma.

But the sigma has a superior build, and is better value in my view.

Depends how much you want to spend. I have the sigma and as far as I am concerned it is fine. I have not used the Canon so I can't comment on it but from general comments the sigma seems OK and better value.

You can read reviews here. http://www.photozone.d​e/canon-eos

Nick5,
I have been very happy with my Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 lens.

I have the Sigma, and it's really pretty decent. Fast and silent AF, good build quality. It does flare a bit easily, but then all UWAs do.

Since the Canon supposedly performs better flare-wise, I do somewhat regret my choice; assuming you don't plan to have the sun in the frame you shouldn't really worry, though. It's one of my most-used lenses as it is.

I have not used the Canon so cannot comment on it ,Alas i,m very happy with the Wigma and it is very good value,i saved roughly $300 over the Canon
The lens sample archive has some very impresive images taken with the Wigma which persuaded me into the purchase of the Sigma over the Canon.

If you don't mind a slightly shorter range, you should also consider the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8. The test on Photozone (and other websites) rate this as a slightly better lens as far as image quality over the highly rated Canon. The build of this lens is outstanding as well.

Tokina 11-16 2.8 is worth a look. Check out the reviews in photozone. You can compare MTF numbers between the Tokina, Canon and Sigma. Based on Photozone's review, the Tokina comes out on top in all areas except CA.

But as far as UWA goes, I think you won't go wrong with any of the three. I have seen some really really good shots from all three lenses in the samples thread.

Nik.

When I was looking for a UW I narrowed it down to the Canon and the Sigma. I would have looked at Tokina also but they have very little presence in Canada.

I chose the Canon because I hate second guessing myself. Sigma is known for focusing issues, needing to send it in for calibration and the Canon just seemed to have better reputation.

Although more expensive I bought the Canon and do not regret paying the higher price for it.