Which wide angle lens would you suggest?

[tyler_jensen]

<p>I have a Canon XTI. I am looking at getting a wide angle lens. I like taking landscape photography and I do this purely as a hobby, I have no intention of ever going professional. So what is a good, reasonably priced lens? I have never bought anything other than Canon brand for a lens but I would be open to other brands if any of you think they are worth it. I know a lot of you are professionals so I appreciate you taking the time to answer this.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I have owned and used both the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and the Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5. I ended up upgrading to the Canon because I valued the extra 2 mm and the extra speed and got a good deal. Here is my take on both of them.<br>

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.<br>

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 without vignetting at 10 mm 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.<br>

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 manula focus feel of the Sigma is better, more like Canon L grade.<br>

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. Canon lenses tend to hold their resale value better.</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>canon 10-22 efs.</p>

[15sunrises]

<p>I have the Sigma 10-20 right now, and am definitely very happy with it. The only thing that would make me change would be the edge sharpness at 10mm. The color, contrast, etc., are all really great and the center sharpness is good throughout the zoom and aperture range.</p>

<p>If I changed, I definitely wouldn't go to the Canon which only offers a minimal improvement for a lot more cost. I'd suggest looking into the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 as an option, which is what I'm currently looking at to possibly 'upgrade' from my 10-20.</p>

[derrickdehaan]

<p>I would second the Tokina 11-16.</p>

<p>Derrick</p>

[charedan]

<p>I too am looking at a wide angle lens, and Sigma as just released a new 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM for APS-C sized. Waiting for some reviews before buying either lens though the Tokina is also interesting.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>One more thumbs up for the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8</p>

[matthijs]

<p>How wide do you need?</p>

<p>Maybe the (new) kitlens would be enough? 18-55/IS.</p>

<p>If you're sure you need wider than 18, then listen to the other posters. If you're not sure then go out, take pictures and check which focal length you use and whether that suits your needs.</p>

<p>Some gorgeous landscape pictures are made with 200mm's and up...</p>

[mohammed_abidally]

<p>Canon 10-22 EFS<br>

Its not the extra couple of mm, this is just a really super lens with virtually L like quality renders sky and clouds etc beautifully, fully worth the the money.</p>

[bueh]

<p>Any super-wide zoom from a reputable manufacturer is worth it. I myself have the Tokina 12-24mm f/4, but virtually all suggested lenses have their fans. It is hard to go wrong -- just get the most expensive lens within your budget and you will have stunning ultra-wide options.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>The Canon 10-22 is the best UW.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p>There are no bad UWA but IMHO the best all-rounder is the Canon 10-22. If better range, better flare resistance, ultra fast, silent and accurate focus are important to you than it is better than the Tokina.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br />Yakim.</p>

</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Tyler, if you want to go <em>really</em> wide on a crop frame body like yours, you are restricted to a zoom (hence all the recommendations for zooms). If you only want to go moderately wide, then a wider EF prime (fixed focal length) lens might be an option for you. However, although primes generally give you better image quality than zooms, they are less versatile, and in some cases mose expensive.</p>

[wes_baker1]

<p>Canon 10-22.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>Canon 10-22.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I recently bought the Canon 10-22, and haven't used it enough to develop a strong opinion at this point. I can tell you it fully meets my expectations so far. I've been very impressed by its performance when zoomed slightly (12-14mm range); distortion is not so bad. Image quality is great!</p>

[tyler_jensen]

<p>I really appreciate all your help. I looked at lens prices and I saw the Canon 10-22 for $710 and the Sigma 10-20 for $480. So for a complete amateur is the Canon worth the extra, roughly $230?</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Is it worth the extra money?That depends on you. I have used a few UW's and they all performed well, especially outdoors. I hear good things about the Tokina 11-16 2.8 as well as the Sigma 10-20. I am sure any of them will do just fine. I personally preferred the Canon because it was small, light as well as producing sharp vibrant photos. If you plan on sticking with photography and plan to remain on a crop body like your current camera then maybe its worth it to pay extra for the Canon.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Tyler<br>

This is something you will need to decide for yourself. If you are on a budget then the answer IMO is no. I have owned both but had good reasons that I could justify to myself for selling the Sigma and buying the Canon. I also got my Canon new for $650. I probably would not have done so at $700, even though I could afford it.<br>

If you get the Sigma make sure you do so through a place where returns are easy. Sigma's QC on this lens seems generally pretty good, but their overall QC is not that great IMO. They seem to suffer from more decentering than other manufacturers. When you get is do some shots on tripod at different apertures and different focal lengths and check your images accross the frame for eveness.</p>

<p> </p>

[delwyn_ching]

<p>Canon EF-S 10-22 is plenty wide for your XTi. If you can stomach going longer, the 17-40L is an excellent lens.</p>

[photos of hans koot]

<p>tokina 12-24 version II</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>So for a complete amateur is the Canon worth the extra, roughly $230?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am a complete amateur (my wife constantly moan about it...) and my answer is: Absolutely.</p>

<p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

[markonestudios]

Before splashing out, why not rent both the Canon and the Sigma and try them out on similar subject matter? You should also check out http://www.photozone.de for reviews of all the lenses mentioned above...