Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5

loudspeaker · 18th October 2008

To users who have tried this lens,

Which one do you prefer?

Price difference is abt 200 dollars.

Sigma or Canon?

xtn32 · 18th October 2008

Canon, definitely

desibelle · 18th October 2008

yep - definitely canon...

pplneedthelord · 18th October 2008

is there any reason why canon is chosen over the sigma?

in terms of aperture and a 2mm focal length difference and branding is there any other difference? say... in terms of distortion wise at 10mm, any difference?

xtn32 · 18th October 2008

compared to my friend's sigma 10-20, canon's IQ wins hands down . . . he has sold his sigma since then and bought the canon instead

StrifeYun · 18th October 2008

canon

calebk · 19th October 2008

Originally Posted by pplneedthelord

is there any reason why canon is chosen over the sigma?

in terms of aperture and a 2mm focal length difference and branding is there any other difference? say... in terms of distortion wise at 10mm, any difference?

Price difference.

The Sigma retails for around $890, while the Canon is in the high 900s range, which makes the pricing less than $100 apart; it makes much sense to go for the original manufacturer's product, unless you are looking to save that $100.

If it were me, I'd save it, knowing the Sigma is no slouch.

Prince · 19th October 2008

Actually I beg to differ. The reason that I choose Sigma over Canon is because if we were to notice most landscape photography featured in magazines like Digital Camera World, Digital Photographer and/or other European magazines, most pro-Canon photographers use Sigma 10-20 on their APS-C bodies or Canon 17-40 F4L for their FF bodies for wide-angles. I seldom see a EF-S 10-22 being used. But again, these magazines may be biased.

There are also reviews saying that Sigma 10-20 is better at handling barrell distortion vs Canon 10-22. I attempted to ask about IQ of these two lenses at a renowed shop near City Hall, the sales person merely said that more ppl prefer Canon - a polical answer to my question.(This thread may help http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=404548.)

When it comes to getting good landscape shots, composition and post processing plays a critical roll in introducing a dramatic effect to the shots. Probably at the end of the day, it's really the user that makes a difference - be it any lenes.

Last, Calebk is correct, Sigma 10-20mm is not S$200 cheaper than Cannon Ef-S 10-22mm. The price difference is less than S$100. But Sigma throws in hood and case - maybe that is what makes it effectively S$200 cheaper. Hence, I would think that the SIgma is not cheap, considering that it is a third party lens.

It really took me quite sometime to overcome the Canon-user's inherent bias towards Canon lenses and L lenses.

Hope my humble opinion helps.

brianbar · 19th October 2008

I have the Sigma 10-20mm, and I'm very pleased with it, the price saving also helps to go towards other equipment.

Brian

tempdan · 19th October 2008

read this review by ken rockwell

Code:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

calebk · 19th October 2008

Originally Posted by tempdan

read this review by ken rockwell
Code:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

I find that review to be flawed; my 10-20 did not exhibit such poor optical performance.

Kit · 19th October 2008

I find that with Sigma, its hits or misses. You can get a copy as good (if not better) than the Canon's equivalent or an absolutely stinker. Canon's QC is more consistant though there are some degree of variations too.

Prince · 19th October 2008

True! Maybe QC plays a part.

Cheers.

faineant · 19th October 2008

Post processing closes most gaps between lenses. Most gaps not all. Unless you don't take pictures in RAW and do post proc.

loudspeaker · 20th October 2008

Originally Posted by Prince

Last, Calebk is correct, Sigma 10-20mm is not S$200 cheaper than Cannon Ef-S 10-22mm. The price difference is less than S$100. But Sigma throws in hood and case - maybe that is what makes it effectively S$200 cheaper. Hence, I would think that the SIgma is not cheap, considering that it is a third party lens.

It really took me quite sometime to overcome the Canon-user's inherent bias towards Canon lenses and L lenses.

Hope my humble opinion helps.

The last time i check, it was going

Sigma was 750 at orient photo and canon was 965 at Alan Photo.

200 difference still worth to go with sigma???

lightsabre · 20th October 2008

Why don't you also take a look at Tokina 11-16 f2.8. The price is about S$800+

In my opinion and from what I read, beats both these lenses hands down

calebk · 20th October 2008

Originally Posted by faineant

Post processing closes most gaps between lenses. Most gaps not all. Unless you don't take pictures in RAW and do post proc.

Not true. For example, shooting in JPG and merely adding contrast does not make up for softness. PP is no magic bullet for not getting it right at the moment of the shot.

Originally Posted by loudspeaker

The last time i check, it was going

Sigma was 750 at orient photo and canon was 965 at Alan Photo.

200 difference still worth to go with sigma???

The Sigma at Orient Photo may be a grey set (i.e no local warranty).

enkindel · 28th November 2008

I had the sigma 10-20 on when I was using a nikon body. Thankfully i was blessed with a sharp copy, but I do need to reiterate that the coating DOES chip-off sometimes.

It was, and still is the UWA of choice for me for a nikon body, provided you have a sharp copy. And just like what the magazines feature....the images are stunning, dramatic and knocks you off!

I have since sold off the lens to fund an upgrade, and do miss it sometimes

hehe....

I guess the TS must be a canon user considering the comparison. Thus my conclusion: the canon 10-22 is a more consistent lens in terms of IQ and chipping issues. Perfect for a 1.6x body.

For a FF body, guess the 5D coupled with a 17-40 f4L is a sure hit....you do not need f2.8 on a uwa, the lens works best at f4 and above.

Enjoy your wide angles.

18th October 2008	#1
loudspeaker New Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 7	Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 To users who have tried this lens, Which one do you prefer? Price difference is abt 200 dollars. Sigma or Canon?

18th October 2008	#2
xtn32 Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 484	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 Canon, definitely __________________ EOS 7D \| EF70-200 f4L \| EFS17-55 f2.8IS \| EFS10-22 \| Sigma 30mm f1.4 \| Speedlite 580EX II

18th October 2008	#3
desibelle New Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 35	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 yep - definitely canon...

18th October 2008	#4
pplneedthelord Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: serangoon Posts: 1,579	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 is there any reason why canon is chosen over the sigma? in terms of aperture and a 2mm focal length difference and branding is there any other difference? say... in terms of distortion wise at 10mm, any difference? __________________ 40D+17-50 f/2.8+30 f/1.4+430EXII www.pplneedthelord.blogspot.com l www.flickr.com/pplneedthelord

18th October 2008	#5
xtn32 Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 484	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 compared to my friend's sigma 10-20, canon's IQ wins hands down . . . he has sold his sigma since then and bought the canon instead __________________ EOS 7D \| EF70-200 f4L \| EFS17-55 f2.8IS \| EFS10-22 \| Sigma 30mm f1.4 \| Speedlite 580EX II

18th October 2008	#6
StrifeYun Member/Tangshooter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Serangoon North Posts: 1,996	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 canon __________________ *Canon* EOS "Luxury" [flickr]

19th October 2008	#8
Prince Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 194	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 Actually I beg to differ. The reason that I choose Sigma over Canon is because if we were to notice most landscape photography featured in magazines like Digital Camera World, Digital Photographer and/or other European magazines, most pro-Canon photographers use Sigma 10-20 on their APS-C bodies or Canon 17-40 F4L for their FF bodies for wide-angles. I seldom see a EF-S 10-22 being used. But again, these magazines may be biased. There are also reviews saying that Sigma 10-20 is better at handling barrell distortion vs Canon 10-22. I attempted to ask about IQ of these two lenses at a renowed shop near City Hall, the sales person merely said that more ppl prefer Canon - a polical answer to my question.(This thread may help http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=404548.) When it comes to getting good landscape shots, composition and post processing plays a critical roll in introducing a dramatic effect to the shots. Probably at the end of the day, it's really the user that makes a difference - be it any lenes. Last, Calebk is correct, Sigma 10-20mm is not S$200 cheaper than Cannon Ef-S 10-22mm. The price difference is less than S$100. But Sigma throws in hood and case - maybe that is what makes it effectively S$200 cheaper. Hence, I would think that the SIgma is not cheap, considering that it is a third party lens. It really took me quite sometime to overcome the Canon-user's inherent bias towards Canon lenses and L lenses. Hope my humble opinion helps. __________________ 5DII+BG-E6+580EXII, 24-105 f4L, 50 F1.4 DG EX & 135 F2L Last edited by Prince; 19th October 2008 at 03:36 AM.

19th October 2008	#9
brianbar New Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Posts: 1	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 I have the Sigma 10-20mm, and I'm very pleased with it, the price saving also helps to go towards other equipment. Brian

19th October 2008	#10
tempdan Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 166	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 read this review by ken rockwell Code: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

19th October 2008	#12
Kit Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Bukit Timah / Melbourne CBD Posts: 6,034	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 I find that with Sigma, its hits or misses. You can get a copy as good (if not better) than the Canon's equivalent or an absolutely stinker. Canon's QC is more consistant though there are some degree of variations too. __________________ arkitectural photography http://arkitecturalphoto.1x.com/

19th October 2008	#14
faineant Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Changi, Singapore Posts: 258	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 Post processing closes most gaps between lenses. Most gaps not all. Unless you don't take pictures in RAW and do post proc. __________________ Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.

20th October 2008	#16
lightsabre Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 483	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 Why don't you also take a look at Tokina 11-16 f2.8. The price is about S$800+ In my opinion and from what I read, beats both these lenses hands down Last edited by lightsabre; 20th October 2008 at 02:11 AM.

28th November 2008	#18
enkindel Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Ágætis byrjun Posts: 145	Re: Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 vs EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 I had the sigma 10-20 on when I was using a nikon body. Thankfully i was blessed with a sharp copy, but I do need to reiterate that the coating DOES chip-off sometimes. It was, and still is the UWA of choice for me for a nikon body, provided you have a sharp copy. And just like what the magazines feature....the images are stunning, dramatic and knocks you off! I have since sold off the lens to fund an upgrade, and do miss it sometimes hehe.... I guess the TS must be a canon user considering the comparison. Thus my conclusion: the canon 10-22 is a more consistent lens in terms of IQ and chipping issues. Perfect for a 1.6x body. For a FF body, guess the 5D coupled with a 17-40 f4L is a sure hit....you do not need f2.8 on a uwa, the lens works best at f4 and above. Enjoy your wide angles.