Poor man's Sigma 10-20?

P

Pete R

Suspended / Banned
Messages
308
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Afternoon everyone, I was just looking into getting a sigma 10-20 for my 400d but at the minute I can't justify spending around £300 on a lens, it's going to be difficult enough trying to explain to my wife why I want a £100 filter to bring out the detail in the clouds, let alone this! So I was just wondering if there is a cheaper version, or possibly a different lens that is cheaper that covers pretty much the same job as the Sigma. Any help would be great ta!

Pete
 
If you want autofocus and really wide angle, there's nothing else to the best of my knowledge. I'm afraid that the Sigma already is the poor man's edition, being substantially less than the Canon 10-22.

If you're OK with manual focus, then you might want to look at the
Samyang/Zentiar fisheyes. They'll need an M42 adapter to work on your 400d, and will give the fisheye look without de-fishing them in post-processing.

The Zenitar 16mm goes for around £140 on ebay. The Samyang 8mm is around £220.

(Note: I've never tried either of these...)
 
You could consider the Sigma 15-30mm lens, not quite the same range, but still gives very good results and can often be picked up cheaper (£150-250) than the Sigma 10-20mm.
 
Unfortunately, the 10-20 IS the poor man's UWA.....

15-30 is a good call, as is a used Tokina 12-24mm f/4... I picked up one for £250 from apertureuk a while ago and it was the nuts. The loss of 2mm focal length over the Siggy 10-20 is negligible and equates to a step backwards shooting position in reality..

Problem is, ultra-wides need to be optically half-decent to avoid horrific CAs and distortion and that means you pay a premium of sorts. As said, the Siggy is the cheapest generally, although it's not as optically good as the Tokina IMO.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
15-30 is a good call, as is a used Tokina 12-24mm f/4... I picked up one for £250 from apertureuk a while ago and it was the nuts. The loss of 2mm focal length over the Siggy 10-20 is negligible and equates to a step backwards shooting potion in reality..

Problem is, ultra-wides need to be optically half-decent to avoid horrific CAs and distortion and that means you pay a premium of sorts. As said, the Siggy is the cheapest generally, although it's not as optically good as the Tokina IMO.
Click to expand...


I agree - I much prefered the Tokina over the Sigma (owned both of the above) and felt the Tokina was a lot better than the Sigma - althou mine was a Nikon fit & not a Canon fit...
 
Ok guys, thanks loads for the feedback. I'd best get saving then!!
 
What's wrong with a Tamron 10-24? AF is a bit slow but otherwise there is nothing wrong with its performance especially compared to the Sigma.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top