What is a good Sigma Wideangle lens with EOS 20D

[carl chandler]

I am loking for a good Sigma wideangle lens for my 20D Body. Also

was wondering if anyone has had problems with the Sigma wideangle

lenses or knows of any incompatibility issues on the 20D ? I was

interested in the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM wideangle lens but at

$1,300 its to rich for my blood. I already own 20D kit & Canon EF 70-

200 f/2.8L lens that have set me back a few dollars, so im looking

at a more inexpensive alternative lens like the Sigma wideangle

lens. I'm not interested in any other third party lenses besides

Sigma.

[beeman458]

I have the 16-35, for me, after buying the Sigma 15-30 and the Canon 20mm, it was money well spent. A point to consider.

 

The above being said, the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 gets raves. But, it's a bit crunchie in operation compared to the USM motors by Canon and it uses the very large and expensive 82mm filters. Another point to consider.

 

It's a stop and a third faster than the Canon equivalent and again, gets raves by others who have purchased this lense.

 

Hope the above helps.

[sampsonphoto]

I have Sigma's 15-30 for my 20D... I am very disappointed w/this lens, and I will be unloading it very soon. It's very prone to flare, ghosting is brutal, and the AF is a joke. If you do what I do, pick up a Canon 17-40 f/4 L. I love my 70-200 f/4 L and it has now ruined me on cheaper lenses. Cheers

[wedding-photography-denver]

I'll add vote for the 20/1.8. Very sharp, fast but noisy focus. Accurate, in low light, :-)

[carl chandler]

Regarding the L lens, I had goten rid of the 70-200 f/2.8L lens before and ended up buing another one, because nothing else aftherwards compared to the sharpnes and bokeh. I went thru so many lenses till I repurchased the 70-200 f/2.8L and havent regreted spending good money for it. I also was thinking about the 17-85mm f/4L, but read a lot of bad reviews on fredmirandas site. I would like some thing faster than F/4 for low light work ir: Sunsets or for indoors work. I'm hooked on the L Series lense, and know if I dont get a wideangle L lens that I will regret it.

[carnagex_carnagex]

I dont have, but everyone suggest the Tokina 17mm 3.5

[joeb]

I have the Sigma 12-24 and my lens is sharp. I have seen negative comments online on the quality of this lens. From the comments you may need to try multiple copies. It's worth checking out.

 

Even the 20 mm prime others are recomending is only equivilent to a 32 mm on a full frame camera when mounted to the 20D. The 12-24 is equivilent to a 19-38 mm lens on a full frame. I don't see a need for a wider lens. I also have the 18-55 mm kit lens. 18 mm was not wide enough for me. The 12-24 is sharper and wide enough to satisfy me.

[jake mccarthy]

I own the whole family of L lens: 16-35, 24-70 & the 70-200. All are spectacular pieces of glass. I used to shoot 3rd party lenses, but the only benefit they add is the cheaper price. If you think about it, we shoot CANON for the quality of their optics. IF you choose to buy 3rd party lenses like SIGMA or anything else for that matter, you might as well shoot NIKON. NIKON makes better bodies and if you're going to scrimp on lenses, they're your best bet. But if you shoot CANON for what you should be shooting CANON for (the glass) then stick with straight CANON lenses. Your images come from your lens, not the body!

 

The 16-35 is a godsend for the 20D. It's light wieght, smaller size, and sharpness are wonders of modern technology. The price is high, but buying a lens that gives you truly superior images should be worth what you pay for; and trust me, this is worth every penny.

 

I owned the SIGMA f/1.8 at one time and ditched it. The AF was less than par, and overall quality of the lens could have been improved greatly. For price though, it is nice to consider, but ultimately, if you buy this lens, you might as well buy the one for the NIKON mount.

 

Stick with CANON glass and you can't go wrong.

 

Cheers

 

Jake

[carlos_santos2]

Own both the 20mm f/1.8 and the 12-24 zoom, I can say either one is stellar; on the 12-24, you see the odd report on the forums of sharpness in the corner, but overall if you get a good one (just buy it at the store), it can't be beat.

 

The 20/1.8 is a fantastic lens too. Yes it's got the unique AF ring on it which takes a bit getting used to (why Sigma put this system on, I don't know, it's silly). But the picture quality is outstanding.

 

Look at Petteri's reviews on both of these lenses here:

 

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html

 

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_20_f1-8/a_Sigma_20_mm_f-1.8.html

 

-cs

[carl chandler]

Jake.

Your right on the Canon lenses, you get what you pay for. I will save a litle more and get the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM wideangle lens. I know deep in my hart that I would be disapointed if I got anything besides an L lens. I'll stick to what I know, nothing compares tp the L lens quality optically and build wise.

Thank's every one for your input.

[jimstrutz]

Tokina 12-24mm f/4. Amazing lens for $500. Just a bit soft in the corners only at 12mm when wide open. At f/5.6 it's sharp everywhere. At 24mm it's sharp everywhere when wide open. Very moderate flare for a wide lens, low distortion, & built well.

 

I've seen the Sigma. The Tokina is better for a 20D & uses 77mm front mounted filters. BTW, the Tokina can be used on a film or full frame DSLR down to 17mm w/o vignetting.

 

Adorama just started shipping to fill their pre-orders. Get your name on the list now. They don't charge until they ship.

 

Just scratch the name off & write Sigma on it if you must.

:)

[sheldonnalos]

The 17-40mm f/4 L is a less expensive alternative to the 16-35mm f/2.8 L, and is generally regarded as its equal, except for the 1mm wider field of view and 1 stop faster aperature.

 

If you are looking for true wideangle (not just the 25-27mm equivalent given by 16-17mm focal length), then check out the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. It's been getting good reviews and is the only lens that will take you down to 16mm equivalent.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon

[ted_marcus1]

<i>BTW, the Tokina can be used on a film or full frame DSLR down to 17mm w/o vignetting.</i>

 

<p>Is this something you've tested and verified yourself, or have you heard it from an authoritative source? I am eventually planning to get either a 350D or a 20D (pending actually handling a 350D and maybe waiting a little while for the bugs to shake out). But in the interim I'm looking for a good ultra-wide lens to use on my Elan II (and subsequently on the digital camera). If the Tokina really does work as a 17-24 for a film camera, that could make it my first purchase for the transition.

[bobatkins]

Jim

 

If you'd like to do a brief review of the Tokina for photo.net, all you'd need to do would be to write a few comments and send along a few images and I can put them togther into a review article and do all the HTML formating.

[jimstrutz]

<I>"Is this something you've tested and verified yourself..."</I>

<P>

Sort of. I put it on an EOS 5 and looked through the viewfinder, checking where is just starts to vingnet & backed off till everything was perfectly clear & then some. 17mm is a bit conservative though, it's more like 16mm. However, the actual image area is a bit larger than the EOS 5's viewfinder, so call it 17mm. But the supplied hood cuts it off at about 18mm, so you have to remove it. Not sure how sharp/clear it is at these edges though, as this is right at the edge of the normally used image circle (1.6x cameras use a bit less than this), and I shoot film so seldom any more, I'm not sure when I'll get around to really testing it.

<P>

Bob, I'll see if I can put something together. There is a lot of interest in these APS-C wide zooms. I usually wait till I see more than just a couple reports before buying, but like a lot of people, I really wanted something now. So far, my comparisons to the Canon 28-135 and Sigma 17-35 are very favorable. I like this lens.

[marknagel]

Carl, if you're looking for true wide angle on your 20D I'm not sure 16mm will be enough. I bought the Canon 10-22. It's gotten good reviews and its been a very good preformer for me. I also have a 17-85, and the 17mm wasn't quite wide enough for some of the indoor stuff I was doing. My local shop told me their Canon rep said it was supposed to be an L lens, but they decided not to because it was an EF-S lens. Personally I don't need the red strip if it preforms, I know the red strip and white paint are important to some, the white paint on the 70-200 2.8is is my only complaint. Anyway, if you're not stuck on Sigma, I recommend the Canon 10-22.

 

Mark

[yakim_peled1]

<p>If I'd buy a DSLR tomorrow (I still shoot film) and if this was the 20D than I'd get the <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml">10-22</a> to cover the wide angles. Reasons: It's the widest lens you can have, it will surely not cause you any future incompatibility problems, it has USM and IF for super-fast AF, it accepts common, front mounted filters in a reasonable size and - most importantly - it is a very good lens. </p>

 

<p> If I wanted a midrange zoom I'd probably buy the <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml">17-40/4</a>. I hear and see that the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and 15-30/3.5-4.5 are optically very good. However, despite the fact that the complaints on Sigma incompatibility problems dropped considerably in the last year, their not-so-long-ago history was <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibilitythirdparty">really awful</a>. Me? I'm probably too paranoid. I can't get rid of the old saying - Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - echoing in my head.... At their current prices I see no chance that I'll be buying one. Naturally YMMV.</p>

</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[ilia]

I'd say 14mm f2.8 HSM - works as ~22mm on 1.6x, extremely sharp even wide open and has HSM focusing. Here's an example (D60 though, not 20D):<br><br><br> <center><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1527398"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1527398-sm.jpg"></a><br></center>

[bill_tuthill]

Yakim writes, <I>"If I wanted a midrange zoom I'd probably buy the

Canon 17-40/4."</I> That gives you flexibility for film SLR and

future full-frame DSLR, but it's instructive to compare the new

Tokina 12-24/4 in their overlapping ranges. Pop Photo SQF 16x and

20x plus distortion measurements:

<P>

<table BORDER COLS=6 WIDTH="50%" NOSAVE >

<tr>

<td>Canon</td>

<td>17</td>

<td>28</td>

<td>Tokina</td>

<td>18</td>

<td>24</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>f/4</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>f/4</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>A B+</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>5.6</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>5.6</td>

<td>A B+</td>

<td>A B+</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>8</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>A B+</td>

<td>8</td>

<td>A B+</td>

<td>A B+</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>11</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>11</td>

<td>A B+</td>

<td>A B+</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>16</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>16</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>22</td>

<td>B C+</td>

<td>B C+</td>

<td>22</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

<td>B+ B</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td></td>

<td>2.10%

<br>barrel</td>

<td>0.65%

<br>pincush</td>

<td></td>

<td>0.45% 

<br>barrel</td>

<td>0.33%

<br>barrel</td>

</tr>

</table>