Wide Angle Lenses

You have made a great choice in the 10-22, I havent regretted getting it! It cost more than the sigma, but like you i wanted the canon. I think if i got the sigma i would have been thinking i wish i bought the canon!

I have never used the sigma (except for in jessops) so i have nothing to compare against, i just had the feeling that the canon was what i wanted!

Of course it is all personal preference!


Matt
 
Kryptix said:
It's not that, all these recommendation are coming from people who don't mind owning non-Canon equiptment. They're the same people who recommend a Hong Kong battery grip to save £50 over the genuine Canon grips. I only want Canon equiptment, yet still people suggested Sigma...

If you owned a 450D and you were offered a Sigma 10-20mm or a Canon 10-22mm for the same price, which would you choose?
Click to expand...

So the point of this thread was ???

If you only want canon there is only one EF-S lens the 10-22 so what was the point in posting this thread.

From my own experience I am lucky enough to have quite a fair amount of disposable income as they say, but I still wont folk out for a canon lens if I can get something that does the same job for cheaper, the canon have advantages but at the moment for the extra cash I don't see the benefit, are you really going to notice the difference between the sigma and the canon???

So for example, if you was to buy an Ipod would you then only use ipod Headphones with it??
 
The 10-22 is the daddy and the only WA choice offered by Canon for crop bodies.

It appears to be superior to the Sigma in pretty much all areas, and you'll be assured that there won't be compatability problems with future crop bodies as can sometimes happen with third party glass.

The only question you have to ask yourself is whether you want to spend significantly more for the future proofing and arguably marginal optical improvements.

FWIW, I did :)
 
So what wide angle Canon lenses do people use with full frame cameras?
 
Kryptix said:
So what wide angle Canon lenses do people use with full frame cameras?
Click to expand...

14/2.8
16-35/2.8
17-40/4
20/2.8
24/1.4
24/2.8

Plus various Zeiss manual focus offerings for the landscapers..
 
But will the 24mm you mentioned above be any 'wider' than the low end of the 24-105mm? :shrug: The kit lens with my 450D is 18-55mm, so is 4mm difference between that and the 14mm going to make much difference in how wide you can go?

If you want a non-prime wide angle lens for your full frame camera, your only choice is the 16-40mm? :thinking: So that's only 2mm wider than the 18-55mm kit lens?
 
It seems you're pointlessly hung up on brand snobbery.

So would you go for the Canon 75-300 or the Sigma 70-300?
They're both pretty pee-poor lenses, but you might as well waste your money more on the crappy Canon. Just my 2p.

Good luck finding an 8mm fisheye or even a 4.5mm fisheye.
How about a Canon 200-500 f/2.8? Oh, wait, no they don't make it.

It's ridiculous. Canon don't make the best glass around. Some of the best glass is made by Tamron, or Sigma, or Tokina. They each have their peaks and troughs.

If someone offered me the Canon and the Sigma 10-20/22 at the same price, I'd go for the Canon. It's a better lens with a better resale value.

However, proportionally, it's a worse lens. Roughly the pricing is at a 2:3 ratio.
The performance however is more on a 5:6 ratio. It is not a £230 better lens. £50-£100, maybe.

If someone offered you a free Sigma 10-20 or a Canon 10-22 for £230, what would you take?
A no brainer.

I seriously wonder as to whether you've tried any other brands.
Try a 3rd party battery in your camera, or a Sigma 24-60. I can almost guarantee my Sigma 24-60 performs at about 7 or 8/10 compared to the Canon 24-70L.
Canon 24-70L is £1000. Guess how much I paid for my Sigma 24-60?
£44.
 
foodpoison said:
But hey, like we're going to change your mind! Spend £700 on the Canon 10-22 and see if it will take better photos ;)
Click to expand...
I'm about to buy a mint 10-22mm for £390 delivered. :|
 
Kryptix said:
But will the 24mm you mentioned above be any 'wider' than the low end of the 24-105mm? :shrug: The kit lens with my 450D is 18-55mm, so is 4mm difference between that and the 14mm going to make much difference in how wide you can go?

If you want a non-prime wide angle lens for your full frame camera, your only choice is the 16-40mm? :thinking: So that's only 2mm wider than the 18-55mm kit lens?
Click to expand...

You're forgetting the 1.6 crop factor.. 16-35mm on full frame will give the same field of view as 10-22mm on a crop body.

Hence 14mm is wide as a wide thing on full frame but nothing special on crop.

foodpoison said:
It seems you're pointlessly hung up on brand snobbery...
Click to expand...

IMO brand snobbery and blind allegiance to a badge is an ugly and misguided thing. However there's nothing wrong with making an educated decision to spend proportionally more on what is ultimately better glass, if you're prepared to suffer from the usual law of deminishing returns that applies to the purchase of any progressively better technology.

At the risk of getting flamed, price aside I can't think of any third party lens that is actually better than the equavalent Canon glass. They often come close and at best are comparable but are never superior.
Where the third party manufacturers excel is cost and price to performance ratio, and their offering of lens specs that the OE manufacturers do not - as you say the Sigma 4.5mm fisheye and 200-500/2.8, also their 30/1.4 and Tokina 11-16/2.8 spring to mind.

As a self-confessed Canon brand whore I have one Sigma lens - a 400/5.6 HSM Tele-macro that only functions wide open but then cost £170 - about 1/4 of the second hand value of the Canon.
If funds allowed I'd replace it with the Canon in an instant, but they don't and without the Sigma I'd have nothing, so it fills the hole nicely :)
 
tbm said:
You're forgetting the 1.6 crop factor.. 16-35mm on full frame will give the same field of view as 10-22mm on a crop body.
Click to expand...
Thank-you. :clap: I thought there would be something like that but it has never been explained to me.

So, 10mm on a crop sensor camera will look (roughly) like 16mm on a full frame camera. Would you say it's 16mm or closer to another number? I'm just trying to get my head around this. :)
 
Just to add to the debate about 3rd-party glass, I bought my 350D because I already had a Canon body and I expected all my lenses to work with it. My Sigma telephoto, however, did not and gave "Err 99" messages when trying to autofocus. I spoke to Sigma about it, and at 6 years of age mine was "too old" to be rechipped.

It's a matter of how much the savings are worth to you: my lens wasn't a very expensive one when you compare to what I've paid for lenses more recently, but I didn't consider it cheap at the time, and I could probably have got a secondhand Canon one for little more. I find it amazing how well lenses will hold their prices secondhand, but that Sigma lens was worthless to me (and virtually worthless on eBay) because of this incompatibility.

You can question whether lenses should last 6 years or longer, or the value of the use one will get out of a lens. And you can argue that it's "not Sigma's fault" because Canon keep the EF specification closed (and probably "cheat" on their own specs to make sure their own lenses work on their own cameras) and won't license 3rd-parties to manufacture officially compatible lenses.

I would probably say that the ideal situation would be for open standards in lenses, so that any manufacturer can make a lens which fully works with a given camera. I think the "four thirds" system works like this?

But for me, personally, I won't buy a Sigma lens again an a hurry.
 
I had the Canon 10-22

I sold it to buy my Tokina 12-24 as I found the 10-12mm area of little use.
The only benefit the canon had over the tokina was the autofocus noise - that's it. The Tokina is better built, optically superior, easier to focus manually and comes with a hood.
(Did anyone suggest you should also budget for a lens hood?)

I'm not one of these folk who buy a HK battery grip for £50 as put it, I'm one of those folk who buys the best tool for the job regardless of brand. Now you have made your decision and good luck with it, I do feel you have been a little blinkered by the brand thing to fully weigh up your options though.
 
Kryptix said:
But will the 24mm you mentioned above be any 'wider' than the low end of the 24-105mm? :shrug: The kit lens with my 450D is 18-55mm, so is 4mm difference between that and the 14mm going to make much difference in how wide you can go?

If you want a non-prime wide angle lens for your full frame camera, your only choice is the 16-40mm? :thinking: So that's only 2mm wider than the 18-55mm kit lens?
Click to expand...



At the wide end, 4mm can make a huge difference!

If you're after a zoom WA for FF, your only Canon choices seem to be the 16-35 f/2.8 L or the 17-40 f/4 l. Open your mind to alternative suppliers and there's the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5/5.6. The Sigma is a whole load wider than any of the Canon offerings. Keep that mind open and stick with Sigma and there's also the 8mm circular fisheye. I know that's a prime and "only" f/4 but again, it's wider than the closest Canon offering - their 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. Now, I'm only guessing but at 15mm, that has to be a diagonal fisheye rather than a circular one doesn't it?

You also seem to think that the 16mm on full frame is only 2mm wider than your kit lens. Well, on a crop body, that's true but stick the 16-35 on a FF body and you'll see how much wider it is! Besides, your kit lens will vignette something horrible on a FF body and may even foul the mirror.
 
The odd thing about this is that to ask what the best WA lens for a Canon body is utterly pointless if you restrict the choice to just Canon glass.

Just open the catalogue, go to the end of the list with the smallest focal length and there you have it! Job done.

Personally I never regretted my Sigma. The lens hood comment is definitely appropriate though. Would have missed it on my 10-20 if it hadn't come with.
Will be looking into that Tokina 12-24 methinks . . .
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Sigma 10-20 is a wonderful lens and a worthy addition to anyones kit list. Did I want the Canon 10-22? Yes, of course, it's a better lens but not by much and not in relation to the extra cost. The money I saved I've used to upgrade from a Sigma 17-70 to a Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. This is what sit's on my camera body most of the time and it's brilliant, however I use the Sigma 10-20 every time I go out to take some photos, it's that good.
 
Kryptix said:
I'm about to buy a mint 10-22mm for £390 delivered. :|
Click to expand...

Well that's a bargain and you should be chuffed!

RichardtheSane said:
I'm not one of these folk who buy a HK battery grip for £50 as put it, I'm one of those folk who buys the best tool for the job regardless of brand. Now you have made your decision and good luck with it, I do feel you have been a little blinkered by the brand thing to fully weigh up your options though.
Click to expand...

I'm one of those people who have bought a £50 HK battery grip.
I have read many, many reviews and every single review I've read of the Phottix battery grip has been superb.

I'm like you. I don't skimp for the sake of it, I buy the best tool for the job and weigh up my options thoroughly.
For me it was: "Spend £130 on a Canon battery grip, or £50 on a Phottix battery grip which is reputed to be of fantastic build quality and functions exactly the same as the Canon one"
Couldn't justify it.
Exactly the same as the Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-20. The Canon didn't offer up enough advantages to warrant spending more on it. I got my Sigma 10-20 brand new for £250.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top