canon v sigma wideangle

I've owned the Canon and didn't rate it. It, or mine at least, displayed vignetting and distortion and althought these can be corrected why should you have to when other lenses display less and probably also have more accurate colour rendition.

I much prefer my current wide angle with it's accurate colour and pretty much zero distortion and vignetting on APS-C.
 
woof woof said:
I've owned the Canon and didn't rate it. It, or mine at least, displayed vignetting and distortion and althought these can be corrected why should you have to when other lenses display less and probably also have more accurate colour rendition.

I much prefer my current wide angle with it's accurate colour and pretty much zero distortion and vignetting on APS-C.
Click to expand...

Vignetting and distortion on the canon10-22? You are kidding right? Those are two things it definitely doesn't suffer from!! I've never seen it on mine and don't get distortion confused with perspective. The canon 10-22 is renowned for being the most uncompromised lens in this aspect.

I compared the sigma to the canon when I bought mine and the canon is sharper throughout IMO.
 
Last edited:
I know the difference between distortion and perspective, a wide is my most used zoom.

Google and you shall find reviews which will show the distortion and vignetting which I found in line with my own experiences.
 
just about every wide angle lens on the planet has barrel distortion of some kind, but we must remember here that you are comparing an APS-C lens with a full frame lens used on APS-C. I know you love your Sigma 12-24 but you just can not compare it to an APS-C lens, because on your APS-C body the worst parts of that lens are hidden. Barrel distortion is always MUCH more apparent towards the edges of a lens, which you won't be seeing on the 12-24.

back to the original question, I can't say much about the Canon wide angle, but I had a Sigma 10-20 and I was very happy with it.
 
trencheel303 said:
just about every wide angle lens on the planet has barrel distortion of some kind, but we must remember here that you are comparing an APS-C lens with a full frame lens used on APS-C. I know you love your Sigma 12-24 but you just can not compare it to an APS-C lens, because on your APS-C body the worst parts of that lens are hidden. Barrel distortion is always MUCH more apparent towards the edges of a lens, which you won't be seeing on the 12-24.

back to the original question, I can't say much about the Canon wide angle, but I had a Sigma 10-20 and I was very happy with it.
Click to expand...

job done, if 12mm will do and funds allow this solves the problem rather elegantly :D
 
"I know you love your Sigma 12-24 but you just can not compare it to an APS-C lens,"

Of course you can compare it to an APS-C lens. APS-C cameras can take full frame lenses so it's a perfectly valid choice. I don't see any sense at all in ruling out all full frame lenses and restricting the choice for APS-C to APS-C lenses only. If you do that most of Canon's line up is out of bounds including every single L lens.

There are a couple of points against the Siggy 12-24mm, it's expensive and it has a built in hood and fitting filters is pretty much a waste of time under 20mm (or so) but the fact that it's a full frame lens shouldn't rule it out.
 
woof woof said:
I know the difference between distortion and perspective, a wide is my most used zoom.

Google and you shall find reviews which will show the distortion and vignetting which I found in line with my own experiences.
Click to expand...

This simply confirms that this is well controlled with the Canon 10-22?

"There is very little noticeable vignetting at any focal length or aperture", "Distortion is low for such a superwide zoom" - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_10-22_review_2.html

"The Canon 10-22mm has much less distortion than any wide zoom I've tested", etc - http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

"Distortion is surprisingly low" etc etc - http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=325

"Distortion was low at all focal lengths", "Vignetting without a filter was also low at all apertures and focal lengths, with no real noticable darkening of the image corners." - http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs_10-22/

"Distortions - The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM exhibited a quite impressive performance here and that's not only for an ultra-wide zoom but also in absolute terms", - The EF-S 10-22mm is a native APS-C lens with a reduced image circle so it is not surprising that vignetting is a more pronounced than with full frame lenses. Wide-open vignetting is at about 1.2EV throughout the range but at f/5.6 the problem is already reduced to very acceptable levels", "The EF-S 10-22mm produced another surprise regarding chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions) - for an ultra-wide lens they can be considered as quite low" - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/174-canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1

Comparison - http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_10-20_vs_canon_tamron_tokina.htm

These results arnt surprising really as the 10-22 is one of Canons most critically acclaimed lenses.... I hate hot linking to sites but you did say to Google it, and those were from just the first page on Google (so its not like I cherry picked them)!! I'm not disputing your personal findings at all which are completely relevant, I just think you may have had a rare bad copy, again, something a potential purchaser will have to bare in mind... It certainly cant be said the Canon 10-22 suffers in these areas more than other UWA lenses.

But back to the OP, I can recommend the Canon 10-22, as can many others. The Sigmas good (both 10-20 and 12-24) but you may find a duffer, and Tokina make a cracking 11-16!
 
Last edited:
I have a EF-S 10-22 and it's a great lens. I've also read a lot of posts where people praise the Sigma 10-22. So as the Sigma appears to be good I would spend my money on something else rather than upgrading for what may not be that noticeable a difference.
 
If you are happy with your siggy UWA then why spend money on upgrading to the Canon. If however, you are unhappy with any aspect of it, then either consider sending it off to be calibrated with your camera or change it.

I had a Siggy UWA for a day. Found it very soft and was unhappy with it. Took it back to Jessops the following day and changed it for the Canon. I was happy with the quality increase. But, if you don't see noticeable problems with your current lens, I can't see the benefits of changing it.
 
Just to throw another option into the mix. I chose the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 over the canon. :)
 
I have owned both and prefer the Canon 10-22mm to the Sigma 10-20mm

Only my opinion, but to my eye the contrast and colours are more pleasing, both good lenses and all comes down to choice
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top