Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-20

Hi Guys! Anyone have

experienced both

canon and sigma

ultrawides? Planning

to purchase this

week. Need advise on

which super wide

lens is best. Im

focused on choosing

beetween the canon

10-22 and sigma

10-20.. Just read

lot of reviews from

different sites and

I understand there

are pros and cons

for each unit.

Though sigma is much

cheaper, is the

optical image result

quite the same? Is

vignetting a common

thing for ultra wide

lenses? which lens

is much sharper with

less flare? I read

that sigma has quite

problems in terms of

build quality? Hope

to hear it from you

guys.. Thanks :)

Adrian: I use the Sigma on a Nikon body, but that's irrelevent on two points, here...

<br><br>

First, vignetting doesn't seem to be a problem at all.

<br><br>

Second, the 10-20 HSM seems very well built. I've not had a moment's trouble with it. My gear goes with me, I'm hard on it, and I mount/dismount that lens regularly as I <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00PlnD&photo_id=7385489&photo_sel_index=0"><b>use it in the field</b></a> . It's solid, tough, and has been producing some of my favorite images. In my first comment in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PDDh"><b>this thread</b></a>, you'll see links to a number of other images courtesy of that lens. I wouldn't part with it at this point. Obviously I can't comment on the Canon directly, but I want to make sure that you don't go away assuming that the Sigma is going to be some rattling piece of junk when you open the box. Far from it. Good luck! I'm sure you'll get tons of use out of either lens.

Adrian

 

I have used both and when I was looking to purchase an UWA I went for the Canon 10-22 because I got a great deal on it at the time. It is an excellent lens indeed.

 

That being said ... I recently sold it and here is why ...

 

I have used both and found no difference in IQ or vignetting at all. Any minor differences after pixel peeping could easily be fixed in PP anyhow. SO, seeing as I don't use the UWA range as much as I thought I would I ended up selling my Canon and actually making some money off it in the end and in turn I bought the Sigma and it really is a great lens. I don't regret it.

 

This is my first Sigma lens and never did plan to buy any of them to be honest but using this particular one and seeing minute differences between this and Canon's 10-22 (provided you get a decent copy of the Sigma) I would say if money is the issue then go ahead and get the Sigma. Save your cash for other gear or pocket it and you will be happy. The other thing was the 10-22mm hood is not included and is ugly and almost useless anyhow. Sigma includes one and it looks pretty good too!

 

With any UWA lens if you pixel peep you will realize that due to the extreme wide angle of these lenses that there will be some instances where it is not as sharp as say a 17-xx range lens or 70-200 obviously. HOWEVER, both the Canon and Sigma are quite sharp with the Canon perhaps in a slight lead but not noticeable in real world shooting and easily cleaned up with PP.

 

Flare, build etc. No issues!

I agree 100% with Jay's assesment. But there is one technical difference. The Sigma is 1/2 stop slower. Other than that IQ, focus speed and everything else is the same. Free hood, and cheaper price outweighed that 1/2 stop for me. I use the Sigma and get phenominal images. Go for it.

Thanks guys.. Im also worried what if I get a bad copy of the lens(sigma)?..How will I assess if I bought a good one

Resale value on the 10-22 might be higher, if you decide to get rid of it later.

 

For what it's worth, I use the heck out of my 10-22. When I'm in a national park, it's not uncommon for me to shoot half of my shots with that lens. It's also great for interiors.

 

If I had a little more money, I might carry two cameras. One with the 17-55 f/2.8, and one with either the 10-22 or a long zoom, depending on the situation. If I had even more money, I'd have the full frame equivalents and a giant hard drive to store all that data. But I'll always have an ultra-wide zoom from now on.

Adrian: How would you determine if you got a defective copy of a lens from Canon? EVERY lens manufacturer ships the occasional problem lens. Both manufacturers in this case warranty their lenses, and both will let you ship it to them for a going-over by their domestic shops. Sigma turns them around quickly if you actually have a problem, and that four-year warranty will let you use the lens a LOT while still having some safety that way.

I tried two copies of the 10-20 and was very impressed. Nevertheless, for myself I bought the 10-22.

A tad sharper wide open, a tad faster AF and a tad more flare resistant. No wonder it's a tad more

expensive.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I had even posted a

thing on eBay

reviews about the

"bad lens" rap for

Sigma. Buy from

somebody who will

stand behind the

product, but what I

found out, after an

intial moment of

panic, was that it

was not the lens

that was the

problem. These

lenses are so wide

that there is so

much in the view to

focus on. Thus, it

becomes critical for

the user to pay

attention to which

of the little focus

point lights is

actually active.

Once I learned that,

marvelous to say, I

had no more problems

with sharp and fast

focus. This is true

of any of the

superwides.

 

Plus, I got a

four-year warranty,

but have not had any

problems with the

Sigma. It had less

barrel distortion

than my 17-85mm (but

then, what doesn't

;) , and what there

is is only out at

the edges.

 

See the reviews of

the two lenses at

Photozone.de for

more precise ideas

about these both

with lots of graphs,

charts, and

concreteness.

As Trebor stated ... the Canon is also faster BUT if you are using any of the lenses in low light you will notice they are slow anyhow. This is my only gripe as all my other glass is fast but using cropped sensor bodies I have no choice in the matter but to deal with the slower apertures of these UWA's.

 

Resale value for Canon is going to be much higher as already said as well. I had my 10-22 since last year and sold it recently for even more then what I had paid for it. Had this been the Sigma I know I would not have gotten my money back and then some!

 

I usually use the UWA or 17-55mm on one body and my 70-200mm 2.8L on the other. They are fun lenses, no doubt!

 

If you can purchase the Sigma AFTER you try it out in-store then you should be fine ... even if you get a bad copy of the lens you can always exchange it or send it in to Sigma to have it looked at so you should be fine.

Thanks guys :) Im considering more of sigma now. ANother thing, should I be needing a CPL?

I have the Sigma and I'm happy with it. Flare resistance is pretty good - not quite as good as my Tamron 17-50/2.8 but much, much better than my Canon 20/2.8 which flares badly. The Sigma's focus and zoom rings move buttery smooth - a real joy to use.

 

User reports seem to suggest the following. The Canon's extra 1/3rd stop and 2 extra mm don't matter a whole lot. Both have fast and silent AF (not that this matters much for an UWA). The Sigma has slightly sharper corners at 10 mm. The Canon vignettes a tad less. The Canon has slightly better colors.

 

My take - either one is an awesome lens, you can't go wrong. 10 mm is fun.

I tested both, couldn't see any meaningful difference, and bought the Sigma.

 

An example, at 10mm, here:

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7031114-lg.jpg

Adrian, the two most common problems with Sigma lenses are decentering and front or rear focus. Both are easy to test for. For decentering just photograph something wide open flat like a brick wall or fence and if one corner is sharper than another then the lens is decentered. For focus errors, photograph something like a ruler at a 45 degree angle and see if the image is sharp where you focused. If you have either one of these problems just return it for another one if you wish, or if you'd rather keep it just send it to Sigma for repair because even though Sigma's QC is not the best their warrenty service is and they will repair or replace it for you without any hassel.

IMO, the Canon is a much better built lens and slightly sharper at the corners.

"ANother thing, should I be needing a CPL?"

 

Polarisers are not quite as useful on ultrawides as they are on normal to "regular" wides. They are good and

useful for cutting reflections of water, foliage, etc. However, when using them to intensify the sky they may

produce uneven results. I understand that this is because the degree of polarisation of skylight varies according

to the relative position of the sun - not a problem if you are only looking at a bit of the sky, but ultrawides fit a lot

of sky in!

As far as knowing if your lens is a good copy or not. I think the best way to tell is just to take picutres and if they look shapr and pop you're ok. Don't get bogged down with lens testing unless the images seem unsharp.

I have owned and used them both. I ended up upgrading to the Canon because I valued the extra 2 mm and the extra speed.

 

Here is my take on both of them. The Sigma has slightly higher center sharpness and slightly worse in the corners, though at A4 size prints it is very hard to see any difference. The Sigma has a slightly warmer cast but they are otherwise both much the same in terms of colour and contrast. The Canon AF is a bit faster and more precise. The Sigma AF is good but can miss from time to time, I guess because DoF is already very pronounced.

 

Sigma includes a useful hood and pouch. The Canon hood is expensive, useless and inconvenient to carry in bags because of its size. The hood for the Canon 24-105 f4L can be used on the 10-22 if you are prepared to shave it back ever so slightly (I did). The Canon is very flare resistant so you may not want a hood. The Sigma is ok on flare but not as good as the Canon.

 

The Sigma is smaller but heavier. The build of the Sigma subjectively feels more professional, but the Sigma EX crinkle finish tends to dull over time with handling, which I have never experienced with a Canon lens.

 

The extra half stop of the Canon gives a slightly brighter viewfinder. The Sigma has minor but complex "moustache" distortion. I haven't really noticed any distortion with the Canon.

I too am looking at these lenses, and what makes me lean towards the Canon is that the online reviews cklaims that the Sigma has more cromatic aberration, and the fact that Canon Digital photo professional has presets for lens corrections for the EF-S lens.

I went to a sigma store showroom this afternoon and was able to hold a 10-20 unit. Unfortunately, there was no camera avaible to test the lens. Required me to bring my own cam for testing. I'll go back tom and see the lens again ;)

Bought the Canon 10-22, sold it, made a small profit, bought the Sigma 10-20...why? ..smaller, feels better made and is certainly nicer and smoother to use, better and more compact hood than the Canon too....others will say I am mad...I don't care a fig.

I just replaced my Sigma 10-20 with a Canon 10-22 today, after spending several hours at the Sigma service department trying to figure out why the image quality is so bad.

 

The center of images taken by the Sigma looked sharp enough as long as you stayed within the range of F8-F11. Larger F-stops produced a softer image that could perhaps be acceptable; smaller F-stops produced an image that was blurred to the point of being useless (at F22 and above).

 

The sides of the images (not the corners, mind you - the right and left edges at the vertical center) were blurred at any F-stop and at any focal distance - nothing could be done to get these edges into focus.

 

The technician agreed that the image "shouldn't look like this". At first he tried to calibrate the lens focus but found out that calibrating it for a short focal length placed it out of focus in a long focal length and vice versa. Then he dismantled the lens (!) and reversed the rear element ("people at Sigma told me that this might help") but nothing changed. Then he took a new lens out of the box, and it had exactly the same problems but was still (very) marginally better, so he gave me the new lens.

 

Well, I took this new lens, spent some more money and replaced it with a Canon. Then I took the same shots, and behold - all the problems disappeared. I don't say that the Canon images are sharp corner-to-corner at all F-stops and at all focal lengths, but compared to the two Sigmas - it is a MAJOR improvement.

 

True, the Sigma is heavier and looks more robust, it has a hood and a carrying case and the packaging is better - but when the optics are inferior these factors don't really count.

Exactly where did you have the lens serviced?