EF-S 10-22 f/3.5 vs. Sigma 10mm f/2.8

[mica_ashmore]

<p>Hey everyone! I'm getting ready to move to Turkey, and one thing I'm looking forward to are the photo ops for many historic sites (i.e. churches, mosques, etc.). This means opportunities for indoor architecture shots, so I'm looking at super-wide lenses. From what I've heard, many of the sites have low lighting. I have an APS-C, so in order to get a lens with the possibility for creative shots as well, I'm eyeballing either the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 or the Sigma 10mm f/2.8.<br /> <br /> Would like anyones opinion as to which one might be the better purchase (they both run about the same price). Reason I'm torn is that while the Canon has a little more flex with focal length, its an f/3.5. The appeal to the Sigma is the f/2.8 for lower light conditions, yet the focal length is fixed.<br>

<br /> Any insight would be much appreciated!<br>

- Mica</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>not sure, but I think the Sigma is a fisheye, this will distort the photos. There is a time and place for fisheyes, but they're not as useful as a rectilinear wide angle, which the 10-22mm is. The Canon lens is a great lens, has great IQ, and won't distort as severely as the fisheye. I'd go with it. Just google image search "fisheye vs rectilinear"</p>

[david israel]

<p>I have the 10-22MM and it is wonderful as far as the Sigma 10MM I can't comment as I never used it but the flexaability of the 10-22MM would be the deciding fasctor for me. I think the previous poster is right by saying it's a fisheye. I am sure there will be some more and informative replies to this in the next few hours.<br>

Good luck with your move and great photo ops!<br>

David Israel</p>

[mica_ashmore]

<p>Thanks to both of you. I guess because I have recently played around with faster lenses (specifically Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS), having the faster lens has been stuck in my cranium. I totally agree the 10-22 has much more flexibility, but I guess any concerns I have about the speed can be compensated with higher ISO, or just increasing shutter speed/use a tripod. Also like you both mentioned/alluded to, being a fisheye, while it has its place, maybe not the most practical if trying to choose only one super wide lens.<br>

Thanks again!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There's a new f/2.8 11-16mm lens from Tokina (for APS-C) that could be just what the doctor ordered.<br>

I would not go for a fisheye lens like the Sigma 10mm f/2.8. Especially not for architectural photography.</p>

<p>Of course, for architecture it would be hard to beat the new TS-E 17mm lens, but it's pricey.</p>

[zigzag]

<p>While the Canon 10-22mm has been widely recognised as having the better IQ, the Sigma 10-20mm is not far behind and may be considerably cheaper. It is f/4.5 however. Here's a review for the Sigma:<br /> http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/307-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-hsm-ex-dc-lab-test-report--review</p>

<p>and here's a review for the Tokina mentioned above: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon</p>

[zigzag]

<p>The conclusion from the Tokina Review: "The Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX is currently the best ultra-wide angle zoom lens for Canon EOS APS-C DSLRs. The resolution is impressively high throughout the zoom range (albeit a short one) and across the image field..."</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>While I haven't shot with the tokina, I sent my 10-22 EF-S back and replaced it w/ the Tamron 10-24mm. I haven't been disappointed. All around it is a sharper lens than the 10-22 was (in my experience). The biggest flaw is the lack of a USM/HSM type AF. In my experience though, in that respect the tokinas are even worse than the Tamrons... positively glacial.<br>

Of course I'm not really sure that from 2.8-3.5 (@10mm) will really make that much of a real world diff. you should be able to reasonably shoot both lenses handheld at less than 1/20th of a second. stack that w/ a decent ISO range, and there's little you wouldn't be able to shoot (that you can see at least :-) )<br>

An added plus (for me at least since I shoot APS-C + FF) is that on FF hard vignetting on the 10-24 doesn't really kick in until about 14mm, so 15-24mm is completely usable (14-10mm does turn into a fishbowl...). But it's really nice to have the additional flexibility, and not carrying around another $1500 piece of glass for recreational shooting (16-35/2.8). </p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Fast aperture is less and less significant as FL decreases and the optics of the IQ of the 10-22 is just superb. I particularly like its resistance to flare, a thing which most UWA are prone to. Here's a recent shot.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<div></div>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>I was torn between the Canon and the Tokina. The Tokina was supposed to be sharper but had significantly more distortion and more chromatic aberration—both correctable, but who wants to correct every single photo? The Canon was 1mm wider, which normally would be laughably irrelevant but when you're talking about 10mm vs 11mm the difference is real (albeit minor). The Canon was much more flexible, going up to 22mm, and had a much closer focusing distance which can yield cool effects in wide angle. The Tokina was supposed to be built tougher (!) and has a cool "manual clutch focus ring," but the Canon has USM with full manual override, so that's a wash. The Tokina was faster, but it's rare that I need a fast ultrawide (bokeh is too small at this FOV and shutter speed doesn't need to be especially fast to handhold, so the only point of a bigger aperture here is freezing action—how often do you photograph action shots with a wide-angle lens?). The Tokina is also slightly cheaper.</p>

<p>It was a tough decision but I got the Canon. FWIW, I love the lens, although using wide-angle successfully is a challenge in composition.</p>

<p>PS—one more cool thing about the Tokina, it has an odd-bladed aperture that yields very cool "sunstars" when stopped down. Great for sunset photos, Christmas lights, etc.</p>

[mica_ashmore]

<p>Thank you everyone for the great feedback! I'm still debating, but I think i'm leaning towards the Canon. Again, thank so much for taking the time to sharing some great gouge with this beginner!</p>