Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 10-20mm Wide Angle Lens?

I am a realtor and need to buy a wide angle lens for mostly indoor interior residential photos. The Sigma lens is less

expensive but several reviews I have come across say it shoots darker than the Canon lens. Lack of light is usually a

concern when shooting residential interiors so if it is that big a difference I would spend the extra money to get the

Canon. Wondering if anyone has any advice on which lens to buy and if the Canon is that much more superior than

the Sigma or not?

<p>I would choose the Canon because it has minimal distortion, and you can use Canon Digital Photo Professional to correct easily. The Canon also does not tend to have problems with flare. <br>

Read the reviews online:<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm<br>

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

and others; Google it</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Canon is 1/3rd stop faster, so yes it is a little bit brighter.</p>

<p>For shooting interiors, I think you're probably best off stopping down for dof, and shooting from a tripod. I'm usually no big fan of tripods, but this is one application where they come in very handy. So, the extra aperture will give you a bit brighter viewfinder.</p>

<p>I have the Sigma and it's a good lens. I'm happy with it. It's tack sharp including the corners. However the colors are a little warm. The Canon probably has a little bit better color and contrast. I think this is probably the most significant difference between these two lenses. The Canon also has better resale value.</p>

<p>I don't think you can go wrong with either lens.</p>

<p>edit to add: there are two versions of the Sigma, a newer 10-20/3.5 with constant f/3.5 aperture (brighter than the Canon) and an older 10-20/4-5.6 that I have. The older and slower lens is reportedly much sharper than the newer version. It's cheaper too. If speed is the #1 concern then be sure to check out Tolina 11-16/2.8</p>

<p>It really depends on if you're refering to the Simga 10-20 f/3.5 or the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. I think most people mean the f/4-5.6. Still the difference in aperture is slight (only 1/3 stop). You probably want to be at f/6.3 or f/8 or above anyway for architectural photography. To do a good job, you should get a tripod, and it won't even matter how fast your lens is. This is a moot point. You can probably do your work with the Sigma, so if you need to save some money, go for it.</p>

<p>You're only talking about a couple hundred dollars difference (like $700 vs $500, right?). If the slightest edge on quality is worth $200 to you, then you'd better get the Canon. I'm talking image quality, not build quality. The Sigma is at least as well built as the Canon. This is probably not one of Canon's top sellers, because Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina all make good competing lenses that are nearly identical in performance and quality, and beat the Canon on price.</p>

<p>Sorry, that may have seemed like sort of an aimless wandering ramble, but my honest opinion is I don't think you'll ever notice a difference.</p>

<p>One point that has not been mentioned is the fact that the Canon goes up to 22mm. 2mm may not sound like much but it is significant on such a wide lens. I switched to Canon in order to have the 35mm equivalent of 35mm at the long end.</p>