I'm thinking seriously about getting a wide-angle zoom for my Rebel XT. I've currently got the 18-55mm ƒ/3.5-5.6 kit lens, and the "nifty fifty" 50mm ƒ/1.8. I would like something wider angle, mainly for automotive photography, especially in-car, although I'd probably use it a lot for just walking around. So, I'm considering the Sigma 10-20mm ƒ/4-5.6 and Canon 10-22mm ƒ/3.5-4.5.

I've spent quite a few hours over the last couple of days reading reviews, looking at pictures on Flickr, and even holding both lenses in person, but I haven't taken any pictures yet. The Canon's about $200 more than the Sigma, and doesn't come with a lens hood (another $30 or so). In general, the two lenses seem very well matched. Some reviews claim the Sigma's as sharp as, or sharper than, the Canon, while others say the opposite. In the pictures I've seen on Flickr, it seems to me that the ones from the Canon are noticeably sharper, however (but I'm not done looking). The additional 1/3rd ƒ-stop (?) doesn't sound like a whole lot, but I don't yet have a flash (other than on-board) and I feel like I always want my kit lens to be faster and give me more shallow DoF. The Canon seems to be more resistant to flare. The Sigma seems to be a *very* well-built lens, but their quality control/consistency seem to leave something to be desired.

I don't like to spend more money on something than necessary, but I've also got this thing about buying "the best". I'm trying to be a little smarter here, however, and not spend money on a difference I won't likely see. In the year that I've been shooting with this camera, I've printed out a *very* small number of prints, and I don't really see going larger than 8x10 (mainly because I don't have a printer bigger than that!).

So, I guess I'm looking to hear from anyone who's made the same decision or had any experience with either lens!

 

Can't help with the Sigma becasue I went with the Tokina AT-X PRO 12-24 f/4... Check out photography-on-the net, lots of good information. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php? I think I have a couple of shots posted in my archive at http://www.checkmate.shutterchance.com


Canon Rebel 300D
Canon 70-200mm f/4L
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Tokina AT-X PRO 12-24 f/4
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6
Canon Speedlite 420EX
2006 MINI Cooper S - just for fun!

 

I am a Nikon guy but I used a Tokina Macro lens not long ago and was very impressed....I have several Sigma lens as well and have been nothing but happy with them all. If you are going to use the lens alot I would like at an f/2.8 if its affordable enough

 

I'd love a faster lens, but I don't see anything wider than 16mm that's a ƒ/2.8, even prime.

I'm not really familiar with Tamron and Tokina lenses. Being slightly wider, I'd probably still go for the Canon or Sigma.

 

As a long time Nikon photographer. I have bought many off brand lenses in hope of buying quality while saving some money. Without exception every one of them was replaced at a later date with Nikkor glass. No money was saved, in fact my cost saving measure cost me more money.

Off brands are getting better. Sigma IMO isn't a top line lens. There are some very good Tokina's especially their ATX line. Tamron makes some good lenses too. That being said you will be ahead of the game buying that Canon lens.

Just my .02 here & worth every penny you paid me.

 

If you can afford the extra $$s, stay with the Cannon.

I shoot Nikons, yet I did buy a Sigma 18-200 and it is a very nice lens. In performance and looks. Just the price of the VR lens was way out for me.

Lenses are what you keep from one camera to another. It is the bodies that you change out now and then. So buy the best that will do the job for you and then some.

 

I have been considering these two lenses myself so this thread is interesting.

 

My 10.5mm Nikkor fishie is an ƒ/2.8.

Oh, did I mention Nikon?


That said, I feel your quandry. I myself would love Nikon's 12-24 zoom!

-J/C

 

I like that fisheye, JC. And I kind of mis-spoke earlier; there *is* a Canon 15mm with ƒ/2.8, but it's a fisheye. I've still got my eye on that Peleng 8mm fisheye (ƒ/3.5), but I consider that a "novelty" lens (albeit a very cool novelty that I very much want). The other lens I'll probably get eventually is the Canon 17-55mm ƒ/2.8 IS; that looks like a pretty sexy replacement for the kit lens, but it's also darn expensive. I was at the Boston aquarium today and struggling to take some pictures in very limited lighting. I want both a wider angle lens and a longer lens before I replace what I've got, however.

As for our topic here, I'm leaning more toward the Canon lens; the slightly wider aperture means a (slightly) brighter viewfinder and faster AF. I feel like there's a much better chance of getting a "good" copy of the Canon lens. I feel like I shoot with light sources (sun, street lights) in the frame fairly often, so increased flare is a concern with the Sigma. I don't care about name brands so much; I just want to be happy with the lens.

I'm thinking about renting both of these from Ziplens and comparing them back-to-back for a week. That's probably the best way to answer my questions to my own satisfaction.

 

Rick I have the 10-22 Canon - if you want to borrow it for a day you are welcome.....

 

I'm also a Nikon guy with all Nikkor lenses...except for the Tokina 12-24. That has proven to be an outstanding lens for any price. I would look into it...

 

The review on Photozone mentions some issues with chromatic aberration; have you noticed that, Sin? Looks like a nice lens. I wonder how noticeable those 2mm of focal length are...

 

I just ordered the Canon lens from B&H for $640; I found a promotional code on the photography-on-the.net site that knocked fifty bucks off the price. B&H's item number for the lens is PSJAN07022, if you're looking to buy; I'm not sure how long that's going to be good for...

 

Good choice. I bought that lens two weeks ago.

On the down-side the lens shows fairly heavy vignetting at large aperture settings. At 10mm there're some quite pronounced barrel distortions at the extreme corners (far less in the inner image field) whereas at 14mm pincushion distortions can be quite obvious.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._456/index.htm

photozone shows the sigma a bit sharper at 10mm but read above.

BTW, don't forget there is a rebate right now!

http://66.245.180.181/canonnfl06/content/form.pdf

$15 off

 

I have the Sigma 10-20 and love it. I use it for motorsports photography. Usually in car and closeups of cars to take advantage of the superwide effect. I use it on my Nikons with no problems and being a EX lens it is built heavy and tough. I purchased it because the Nikon offerings were too expensive for the amount that they were going to generate in increased sales above the Sigma ( I shoot mainly Short track and club racing). I use it more as a shock and awe lens and it gets plenty of that. Most of my print sales are 11 x 14 or 8 x 10 so I am not getting the full benefit a pro lens would give me at 2 to 3 times the price. So why spend it? The way I see it I have a very good lens built tough and with fast ultasonic focus for a nice price.

 

Already have the rebate form, Chows. ;-) I didn't intend to buy it so soon, but that sale price at B&H kind of pushed me over the edge. I really wanted to like the Sigma, especially given the price and the substantial feel, but it's the dodgy quality control that put me off. The excessive CA (as seen here, full size; check the upper-left corner) is also a turn-off.

 

Can't say that I have...

 

In general you get a little more bang for your buck with the sigma, if the lens it at the similar quality level.

While my main 28-135 is a canon, both my 15-30 and 75-300 are sigmas. I did plenty of research on them, and the sigma 75-300 APO beat the pants off the canon for the same price. When I bout my 15-30, canons only lens was a 16-35 and at $1500 way out of my league; the sigma was half that price.
Later, canon released a 17-40L for $700, just a hair more than my sigma. I have been tempted to crossgrade to it as it is of course an L lens. A few months ago I did some heavy research on it and found in fact that my sigma is just as sharp as that newer canon L, if not sharper. So now I happily keep it. But of course both brands do not have equivalents for each lens (I dont mean in focal range but in quality) so sometimes the decision is easier.

10mm is certainly going super-wide. If you think 15 might be wide enough you are welcome to try mine. If you look though my shots you'll find I probably take 80% of my photos with it and you've certainly seen me lugging the beast. I think they've since updated it with an ultrasonic motor.