Best wide angle lens

blurryeye

blurryeye

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I am after a new wide angle lens for my 7d, but can't decide on either the sigma 10-22mm or a canon L series lens
Any thoughts on the sigma's image quality
 
Sigma is meant to be pretty sharp - can't comment on the canon - however the tokina 11-16 is awesomely sharp thoroughly recommend for DX
 
I really like the canon L lens but they don't do one wide enough for an apc sized censor.
Not thought about tokina before
 
blurryeye said:
I really like the canon L lens but they don't do one wide enough for an apc sized censor.
Not thought about tokina before
Click to expand...

Stunning build quality, great fluid zoom - not matt cracle finish (stays looking clean!!!!) And Legendary sharpness it really is amazing. Ok so it doesnt have quite the range - the loss of 10mm does make a little difference, however the 17-20 was neither here nor there for me. Having sold mine and moving to FX I am now pursuing their 16-28;)
 
I would recommend looking into the Tokina aswell. Cracking lens and I can't really see how it can be bettered for the price. NIght and Day compared to the Sigma 10-20.
 
Canon 10-22 without a shadow of a doubt.

One if the best lenses Canon make.
 
I have tokina 12-24mm - excellent, canon 10-22 also looks quite good, tried sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 - poor, very poor performance, tamron 10-24 - a paperweight. So I'd pick tokina or canon without a shadow of a doubt.
 
blurryeye said:
I am after a new wide angle lens for my 7d, but can't decide on either the sigma 10-22mm or a canon L series lens
Any thoughts on the sigma's image quality
Click to expand...

I presume you mean a 10-20mm Sigma as they don't do a 10-22mm. They do two 10-20mm lenses. The old one was variable aperture and I couldn't get mine to focus properly on the left and right sides at the same time. Their new 10-20mm is a constant f3.5, but I have no experience of it.

I own both the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 11-16mm. They both have their strong points. If you want to shoot in low light (long-exposure star shots or flashless internal shots) then the Tokina's f2.8 is very useful. However, once you take it outside for use in daylight then it suffers from bad flare. It also has worse chromatic aberration than the Canon.

The Canon 10-22mm not only has magnificent anti-flare performance, but it has a much wider focal range. Those two points, for me, make it the winner between those two.
 
odd jim said:
Canon 10-22 without a shadow of a doubt.

One if the best lenses Canon make.
Click to expand...

+1. I've had mine for ages, only recently started to use it much, love it to bits.
 
The Sigma 10-20 (even the old one despite what Frank says) is a pretty good lens:



That said I understand that the Canon 10-22 is better, I may have gone with that had I have had a few hundred quid more at the time.
 
16-35L f 2.8 MkII, I had this for my Canon 1DsMkII and I believe it is beyond compare. I had the 10-22 for my 30D but the 16-35 leaves it W A Y behind
 
L glass is - L glass :thinking:

Sigma 10-20 isn't so bad... But Canon 10-22 still costs a lot more. I have read a lot reviews where Sigma is compared to Canon. Sigma performs optically same as Canon 10-22 glass only weaker at some points.

It all depends on if you get a sharp copy of Sigma.

Personally i own Sigmas 10-20 and i haven't compered it to Canons 10-22 but i think i wouldn't find that much difference in optical quality to pay extra 150 - 200£

That's my opinion as i don't earn money with photography and i have other things to put my money in ... but if you can afford Canon 10-20 then go with it! 7D will look cooler with Canon glass in front. :D
 
JohnN said:
The Sigma 10-20 (even the old one despite what Frank says) is a pretty good lens:



That said I understand that the Canon 10-22 is better, I may have gone with that had I have had a few hundred quid more at the time.
Click to expand...

Love the pic but not the best advert for the lens, but it is for UWA (it's slightly OOF and the low shutter speed my be OK to avoid hand shake at that focal length it doesn't stop people moving).

That said, I LOVE my Sigma 10-20, it is as sharp as I could ever need, pixel peepers may disagree but when printed at anything less than poster sized I doubt anyone could tell the difference compared to anything else.
 
I used to have the 10-20 and its a cracking lens!! Wish i had the money to buy another!
 
Nawty said:
Love the pic but not the best advert for the lens, but it is for UWA (it's slightly OOF and the low shutter speed my be OK to avoid hand shake at that focal length it doesn't stop people moving).

That said, I LOVE my Sigma 10-20, it is as sharp as I could ever need, pixel peepers may disagree but when printed at anything less than poster sized I doubt anyone could tell the difference compared to anything else.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree and it was a snap pic as you might have guessed, and its not my sharpest either but alot more interesting..

Sorry if I let the lens down :(
 
JohnN said:
Actually I agree and it was a snap pic as you might have guessed, and its not my sharpest either but alot more interesting..

Sorry if I let the lens down :(
Click to expand...

Hehe - you a bad bad man, poor little siggy:D
 
dd1989 said:
Is 10mm really that wide on a 7d though?
Click to expand...

Yes, very wide!
 
I have to chime in ..... The sigma 10-20 is a great lens, don't see why it's getting a bad name here. Maybe I'm just lucky but mine is sharp in all corners. I had the 11-16 too and although it's nice to be able to shoot at f2.8, 99% of the time I use the UWA it's above f8. It's also nice to have the 20mm end which makes it usable for more general shots too.
 
Hi (first post),

Im looking into buying a UWA, im a nikon d3100 user and after reading what seems to 100's of posts I still haven't come to a descision. It seems the Tokina range is best but at the moment for me its the most expensive with almost none for sale used, there are a few Sigma 10-20mm and Nikon 12-24mm lenses going S/H for good money atm.

Ive read about the QC issues with sigma lenses but is this still ongoing? Will I see a noticable difference between the Sigma and Nikon, is the Nikon going to be worth the extra pennys?

Thanks. (Great forum aswell :thumbs:)
 
How wide are you looking for?

There's no ultimate lens when it comes to uwa lenses.Based on personal experience I will say-

Sigma 10-20(original one) Ok without being startling(good for the price though).

Sigma 12-24 As above but a better option if you are considering going full frame(no filter use though).About to be replaced with a MK2 version.

Canon 10-22 Better than the above Sigmas but prone to bad CA.Owned 3 of these over the years and never really enjoyed the experience of any one of them.

Tokina 11-16 Gets great reviews but the one I bought(new) was a dog.I sent it back and promised to never buy another Tokina ever again.Realise it was probably just a bad copy of the lens.

If you don't want to go that wide consider the Canon 15-85.Nice optically and the best build quality of any EFS lens.A nice combo on the 7D.Will probably make you question keeping your 24-105L though.

Canon 17-40 L.Nice lens but there are better for the 7D(thinking 15-85,17-55).

Of all the above lenses I enjoyed the 15-85 EFS the most.Vignettes like a b****r though.

Lastly is the Canon 16-35 MK2.A very nice lens that works well on the 7D(imo 15-85 a better buy though).Great if you are thinking moving FF in the future.

If you don't want to use filters I would take a serious look at the new Sigma 8-16mm.Never used one but looks a very nice piece of glass.If I was in the market for a uwa for apsc that is where I would be looking.

Cheers
Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top