+mdanjou 2:40pm, 27 February 2009
Does anyone have some opinions about these two i should know about ? Feel free to shout.

1. Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 EX DC Digital (Canon EF-S)
2. Canon EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM
Rolf F. 9 years ago
i've never used both but from what i've read the canon is better built, optically theyre about the same IF you get a good copy of the sigma...

personally i'd get the sigma (if i wasnt shooting with the sigma 12-24mm on a 5d that is :) )... i'd just buy it new from a place that has deals with warranty issues for you so you dont have to send it in yourself... or maybe even from a store that has some copies in stock so you can test them before you buy...

just my 5 bucks... others might always prefer the canon even if it costs much more...
Paul Hanley LRPS 9 years ago
The Sigma gets very good reviews. I have the Canon which is very sharp. I had an early Tamron 11-17mm which was pretty poor so I sold it to get the Canon. Personally, I would go for a USM lens every time. Focusing is fast, accurate and quiet.

Incidentally I have a Sigms 18-200 which I bought before Canon released their version. It is a great lens. Sharpness is excellent. I was disappointed Canon did not go for USM with their lens. Sigma are releasing an 18 - 250 with HSM (their USM) and I will be interested to see the reviews of that.
+mdanjou 9 years ago
Thanks for your input.

I guess, going for canon gives a better guarantee to get the quality you're expecting. And with Sigma you might have to send it back once or twice to get the perfect copy you're looking for.

I noticed a used Sigma 10-20 available nearby in good condition for a reasonable price, but i guess that is a no-go (reading all about the 'bad apples' around). Unless i can get a (raw) sample photo from the guy ? I tried but no reply yet, must be a bad one then.

A used Canon might be a safer choice than a used Sigma ?
A new Canon is probably too much for me to spend.

I've read a little more about the sigma and (if you get a good copy) it is a really great lens for the price, very sharp. Though seems to work better on a Nikon ...

I'm a bit worried though about the aperture, it is quite a big difference on the Canon. Starting at 3.5 compared to 4 on the sigma and ending at 4.5 compared to 5.6. Obviously you want to use the fast apertures as less as possible to keep it as sharp as possible, but i'd really love to be able to at least have the option to shoot a photo inside without getting the tripod out.

Also Canon is zooming in just that little bit extra. In the end i think Canon is worth the extra money with those advantages. But the problem is that it's a lot more to spend also !
Mawz PRO 9 years ago
The aperture difference is minimal (Half a stop across the board). This is an ultra-wide, you're going to be at f8-f11 most of the time anyways.

I'd take the Sigma. It's significantly cheaper and just as good optically.
+mdanjou Posted 9 years ago. Edited by +mdanjou (member) 9 years ago
I found a used sigma 10-20 on the net, and with all these problems i read about i thought i'd ask a sample photo first. And you know what, it was fuzzy for at least 25% of the photo, on the right side from top to bottom. The remaining 75% had stunning quality indeed though, but it appeared to have uneven focus. It was on all the samples, some more than others. A common error with these sigma 10-20s, so they say.
earsplitting impulse [deleted] 9 years ago
I prefer the Canon because it shows more resistance to flare, for me this is the only real difference between this two wide angle lenses. Optically they are very similar, focus speed is slightly faster on Canon model, but the main reason I got Canon was the flare resistance
gjl229 PRO 9 years ago
The aperture difference probably isn't material.

Most ultra-wide work is done at smaller apertures to be sure the DOF is assured. I generally try for F/8 or 11 and most photographer-writers seem to recommend the same, IIRC.

I haven't had the uneven focus problem with my copy. That problem certainly means that the elements are not aligned properly during manufacturing and would be repaired under warranty. A good reason to avoid a used lens without inspection, a return option, or a warranty. I bought mine from Adorama and have no complaints.

I have read of that sort of warranty work, front/back/uneven focus, needed from all manufacturers - including Canon. I have not seen any real statistical analysis, though. All else being roughly equal, I'd pay more attention to the retailer and its policies than the perceived return rate.
ASHCROFT54 Posted 9 years ago. Edited by ASHCROFT54 (member) 9 years ago
I got the Sigma instead of the Canon, because of price. I do knowest a lot more lens flares when you shoot with this lens. But there is always options and things you can learn from shooting with this lens. This is what I learn with the flares. You either stand somewhere else or move your camera a bit while shooting or clones them out on Photoshop. I think those are simple rules to go by when shooting with the Sigma lens.

I also have a Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM. Which I really like to shoot with a lot too. I got this lens before the price hike.
Chase Hoffman PRO 9 years ago
I love my canon 10-22. I wish it could fit onto full frame bodies.
Marvolio 9 years ago
the Canon is Top quality glass guaranteed. I bought a sigma and took it back. The biggest difference to me was the way the sigma distorted like crazy.
Bill Greyskull 9 years ago
Can't tell you much about the Sigma, but I do have the Canon and it is very sharp, very happy with the results I've had with it. I'd say the only downsides to it are the weight and the cost - this is a heavy and expensive piece of glass for a 400d.
quarrelsome fang [deleted] 9 years ago
The difference in the sharpness is obvious to me between these two lenses, when you compare two pictures with a lot of tiny details, and especially when shooting on larger apertures. Not sure if you can see the difference on a print though, and if you want to print big, this is something you want to check out yourself.

I have found that with my Canon lens f/3.5 is too small for shooting in a "normal" ambient light I have in my apartment, except still objects/people. If you need flash(es) in any case, a 1/3 stop difference in max. aperture should not be too significant.
bikini sleepshirt Posted 9 years ago. Edited by bikini sleepshirt (member) 9 years ago
i have the canon and i love it. the sigma, i have shot on and it's very close in comparison, any difference is, in my opinion, accurately reflected in the price you pay for each lens, the canon is just a smidge nicer. also, you'll see a little more barreling and less straight lines on the sigma compared to the canon, so that's more a style factor in your decision making process. either lens is great!

in terms of buying used, of course it has everything to do with who you are buying it from. My cat knocked my camera off of the tripod one night with this lens mounted. Amazingly, the glass survived in fine style (thank you, lens hood), but the focus was out of whack. Canon repaired it for under $100. it was a nasty bump onto a hard wood floor, and am pleased with Canon's repair job. It's a high quality lens and assuming it's been cared for decently (as you would hope anyone buying this lens would do), I would not hesitate to buy it used.
ASHCROFT54 9 years ago
I got the Sigma 10-20mm and I really like using this lens a lot. I most shoot my shots at 10mm and at F11 to F16 most of the time. F8 with the Infracolor filter. I've read a lot about how great the customer service is for Sigma. I have 7 Sigma lens and none of them give me any problems ("knock on wood"). 3 Sigmas for my Olympus and 4 for my Canon. They work great for what I shot. This is the link to my photostream if you want check out the photos. You can send me a message and tell me what you think.

www.flickr.com/photos/ashcroft54/
Groups Beta