Although I have not used the Canon 10-22 I do have experience with the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 for cropped sensor bodies.
I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand it gets the job done, has quiet autofocus, and was relatively inexpensive. On the other hand there is the softness on the lower left side which plagues these lenses quite often.
I'm sure the Canon is a much higher quality lens, most likely not having the softness the Sigma has. Its also $300 more. Plus, when it comes down to it, this is a super wide angle lens, so sharpness at 10mm is certainly a relative term. There's also a chance that you could get a copy of the Sigma lens that doesn't even have the softness.
Hi guys, thanks for the sigma info. The sigma has a constant aperture of f/3.5 throughout, which is appealing. Also, a brand new Sigma costs about £450 in the UK, which is the same price as Canon's 10-22mm second-hand. What would you go for; a new Sigma or the second-hand Canon (providing of course the Canon is in pristine condition!)
To clarify, there are two current 10-20 sigma lenses. One being the 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM and the other being the 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM.
I'm not sure about either of these Sigma lenses because I have only had experience with the 10-20 4-5.6 DC HSM.
If I were in your position I would go for the used Canon. It'll be reliable (assuming its been taken care of) and I would rest easy knowing that I bought Canon glass over Sigma.
I also have the sigma 10-20, but I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to even begin talking about lower left softness. I haven't noticed it but I'm guessing I probably will now ;) I'll also add that the one I have was £350, not £450, and it wasn't on special offer or anything. Also isn't a fixed aperture.
Hey Steve, yeah it's the fixed aperture that costs more. You didn't mention your experiences with it - do you like it? What kind of photography do you use it for?
The Canon is noticeably better. Basically, you get what you pay for. (not saying the sigma is "bad") And about the variable aperture - when do you shoot a wide-angled landscape at F3.5? I'm always stopping down to F/8 or above (corners tend to improve by then)
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
here's some samples http://www.flickr.com/photos/46564612@N03/4484080638/ http://365project.org/mohab/365/2010-06-12 http://365project.org/mohab/365/2010-05-10
I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand it gets the job done, has quiet autofocus, and was relatively inexpensive. On the other hand there is the softness on the lower left side which plagues these lenses quite often.
I'm sure the Canon is a much higher quality lens, most likely not having the softness the Sigma has. Its also $300 more. Plus, when it comes down to it, this is a super wide angle lens, so sharpness at 10mm is certainly a relative term. There's also a chance that you could get a copy of the Sigma lens that doesn't even have the softness.
If you want to see some of my samples, you can go here. http://www.zhphotographs.com/#a=0&at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=3&p=3
Most, if not all, of the photographs in that series were taken with the Sigma 10-20.
I'm not sure about either of these Sigma lenses because I have only had experience with the 10-20 4-5.6 DC HSM.
If I were in your position I would go for the used Canon. It'll be reliable (assuming its been taken care of) and I would rest easy knowing that I bought Canon glass over Sigma.