Sigma 10-20 vs Canon 10-22? - DPChallenge Forums

09/17/2006 12:35:24 PM · #1

I'm planning to buy one of these lenses and I can't decide which to get. Besides the price, I'm having trouble finding differences in the two. Has anyone here had the opportunity to shoot with both lenses?

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

09/17/2006 12:44:19 PM · #2

I haven't had experience with both, but once I bought the 10-20, I was a die-hard Sigma believer. I bought the 105 2.8, then sold my Nikkor 80-200 2.8 for the 70-200 2.8 and the 1.4x TC...Sigma lenses are great.

I don't look at it like Sigma is a sacrifice for the price. Their lenses and Canon/Nikon's counterparts are just so similar that I feel that in most cases, if you buy anything other than the Sigma, you're just wasting money.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/17/2006 12:47:48 PM · #3

I haven't "tested" the Sigma, but I was shooting alongside a photographer who had one in Oregon, and I was NOT impressed with either the build quality or the painted-on finish. Canon's 10-22 felt/looked far superior.

R.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

09/17/2006 12:53:02 PM · #4

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Canon's 10-22 felt/looked far superior.

So the look and feel is worth the extra $200? Just curious.

slickchik

OM System OM-1

09/17/2006 01:00:32 PM · #5

I have no experience with the Sigma but the Canon lens is amazing. Everytime I have purchased a non-Canon lens, I regret it and wish I had spent a little more.

Ecce_Signum

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/17/2006 01:01:01 PM · #6

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Canon's 10-22 felt/looked far superior.

So the look and feel is worth the extra $200? Just curious.

I've only sold 1 sigma lens (70-300) and got back 75% of its value after 3 weeks! I sold my 70-200 F/4L for the same as I paid - 12 months later so, maybe the resale value should come into your equation? Oh, and I recently bought a Sigma and am more than happy with it :) I think the 'feel' of a lens is important as if you don't get on with it then it will probably stay in the bag. Just a thought but at those angles 2mm really is quite a lot.

MrEd

Sony DSLR-A100

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Minolta

09/17/2006 01:11:45 PM · #7

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:

After using the the 10-20, be it Sigma or Canon, I doubt he'll be selling it...unless there's a physical problem with his copy of it. I love the wideness of my Sigma 15-30 and will probably/eventually get the 10-20 once funds and availability coincide. Everyone was sold out of the 10-20 when I considered purchasing it.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/17/2006 01:18:16 PM · #8

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Canon's 10-22 felt/looked far superior.

So the look and feel is worth the extra $200? Just curious.

The way I see it, the look and feel of the lens are indicative of its overall build quality so yes, it's worth it for me. I Have never really gotten along well with things that don't "feel right" to me, and I have always regretted buying them.

R.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/17/2006 01:39:14 PM · #9

- The two that were close to me were the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 12-24.
- I thought the Tokina was far the nicer to handle and use (smooth focus, great cluch system, nicer weight e.t.c.). The images and reviews I read prefered the Tokin or Canon for the image quality over the Sigma (each has different advantages).
- Tokina is around $500, which is a bonus.
- **WAG** I doubt the resale of Canon EF-S mount will be as good long-term as the EF mount because they cannot be used on the pro bodies and who knows the plans for the mid-range bodies. Having said that - I suspect they will have to pry the Canon out of my cold dead hands, so selling is not a big deal - just the body upgrade :-)

- I went for the Canon for the extra 2mm and have no regrets at all.

Message edited by author 2006-09-17 13:39:52.

Ecce_Signum

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/17/2006 01:47:10 PM · #10

Originally posted by MrEd:

Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
I've only sold 1 sigma lens (70-300) and got back 75% of its value after 3 weeks! I sold my 70-200 F/4L for the same as I paid - 12 months later so, maybe the resale value should come into your equation? Oh, and I recently bought a Sigma and am more than happy with it :) I think the 'feel' of a lens is important as if you don't get on with it then it will probably stay in the bag. Just a thought but at those angles 2mm really is quite a lot.

After using the the 10-20, be it Sigma or Canon, I doubt he'll be selling it...unless there's a physical problem with his copy of it. I love the wideness of my Sigma 15-30 and will probably/eventually get the 10-20 once funds and availability coincide. Everyone was sold out of the 10-20 when I considered purchasing it.

Just a thought but the Canon 10-22 is an EF-S lens and doesn't fit all Canon Cameras, will a sigma fit on (say) a 1D MKIIn?

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/17/2006 02:19:35 PM · #11

The Sigma 10-20 mm is also for cropped cameras ... I have been considering this for a long time now, I finally TODAY went from P&S to dSLR!

I got the EOS 400D (or XTi) and two lenses - 50mm 1.8 and 10-22 3.5-4.5. I am in Hong Kong, prices are reasonable on most items, but for some reason, the longer lenses are all 20% or so more expensive than in the US?

Anyway, here is why I got the Canon and not the Sigma:

Canon ...

... is faster (not much though)
... has slightly more zoom, as mentioned, only 2 mm more
... is lighter! 385 grams compared to 460 grams I think (about 2 to 3 ounzes?)

Yeah, some of the money might be for the brand ... but what the heck!

Especially because of the 1.6 crop, I felt I had to get the wides lens there is. Also considered a fish-eye, but because of limits not just in toy spending ability but also on weight and space, I leave that lens for now, although I would be tempted one day for the 8 mm Canon ...

Now for the LONG lens, that is MUCH harder for me, but I am quite sure I want IS, so will it be 70-200 F/4L or 70-300 IS?

My initial plan is three lenses to cover it all, I hope I can do with that for a looong time ... maybe a long lens with macro capability AND IS!

Message edited by author 2006-09-17 14:20:06.

mist

Canon EOS-60D

09/17/2006 02:25:47 PM · #12

Depending on what you take photos of, you'll probably find the 10-22 a tad too wide for normal usage. I quite like the 10-22, but I'm glad I have my 28-135 too.

Now just to find something long and I'll be like a nicely toasted bagle.

09/17/2006 02:44:46 PM · #13

Originally posted by mist:

Same for me!

The soon to be released 70-200 F/4 IS, around Â£1000 or so, si that within range? I have just gone dSLR today, and it is on my wishlist, yet not sure if it is the right choice for me ...

For more info, see //www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082414canon70-200f4lens.asp

09/17/2006 02:53:46 PM · #14

My objective for purchasing one of these two lenses is for a trip I hope to take in the Spring. I'm hoping to spend two weeks in Arizona and New Mexico with a group from school studying native american culture. I want a really nice wide angle lens for landscapes when I take this trip.

The one detail I can't find on the Sigma 10-20 is whether or not it will work on my 10d as well as my 20d. The Canon 10-22 does have the EF-S mount, but does the Sigma have that same mount or will it mount to any Canon EF mount?

09/17/2006 03:10:07 PM · #15

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

According to this comparison //www.pbase.com/lightrules/uwatest the Canon does not fit - amongst others - the 10D, but I can only quote, I don't know how the 10D fits EF-S or not.

In any case, that comparison fits the original question in this thread well, have a look!

Edit: It says

10D/D60/D30 compatible: S Yes, C No

where C is Canon and S is Sigma, obviously, so I guess that answers your question.

Message edited by author 2006-09-17 15:13:16.

09/17/2006 03:16:23 PM · #16

Originally posted by B74A:

Edit: It says

10D/D60/D30 compatible: S Yes, C No

where C is Canon and S is Sigma, obviously, so I guess that answers your question.

That's what I was looking for. For that reason alone, I will most likely buy the Sigma lens. I have both the 10d and the 20d that I plan to take on this trip and I would love to be able to use that lens on either camera.... thanks for the link :)

09/17/2006 03:20:30 PM · #17

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Originally posted by B74A:

Edit: It says

10D/D60/D30 compatible: S Yes, C No

where C is Canon and S is Sigma, obviously, so I guess that answers your question.

That's what I was looking for. For that reason alone, I will most likely buy the Sigma lens. I have both the 10d and the 20d that I plan to take on this trip and I would love to be able to use that lens on either camera.... thanks for the link :)

You are welcome!

For me, it was the lower weight of the Canon that really did it. I now have 385 grams of 10-22, 130 grams of 50 1.8 and who knows, about 7xx grams of 70-200 F/4L IS soon!!!

09/17/2006 03:37:52 PM · #18

Originally posted by B74A:

You are welcome!

For me, it was the lower weight of the Canon that really did it. I now have 385 grams of 10-22, 130 grams of 50 1.8 and who knows, about 7xx grams of 70-200 F/4L IS soon!!!

I have had some sigma lenses in the past but I didn't keep either of them. I had the 12-24 and the 105mm macro. The 12-24 had some irritating distortion problems that I believe have been corrected in the 10-20. I sold the 105 macro simply because I didn't use it. I so rarely need or want to shoot anything at 1:1 that the lens was just collecting dust. I bought a set of kenko extension tubes that I can use on my 70-200 and get as 'macro' as I want to, and have the advantage of the L glass...

09/17/2006 04:38:51 PM · #19

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I bought a set of kenko extension tubes that I can use on my 70-200 and get as 'macro' as I want to, and have the advantage of the L glass...

I just strongly dislike seeing misinformation spread, especially when those who spread misinformation are rewarded for spreading it.

Do you really think that a 70-200 being an L gives you some advantage when using it with extension tubes for shooting macro vs a dedicated 105 2.8 macro lens? Sigma is a leader in optics and I'd be willing to put some money on the fact that every advantage lies with the 105 2.8 vs. the 70-200 with extension tubes when it comes to shooting macro.

I don't get too into technical details of lenses, I let those that feel like putting the time into pixel peeping, peep the pixels for me. It's no hidden fact that the Sigma rivals the Nikkor as far as image quality goes and I believe it's also common knowledge that the Nikkor macro exceeds the Canon as far as quality is concerned as well.

B74A, you state that the Canon is faster than the Sigma. Do you mean focusing speed? Is that something that you've concluded off the top of your head? Have you used both lenses and are only going off of personal feel? Have you seen some scientific research performed that gave you that idea, or are you just going off of what you read from some other Canon-elitest who has no experience using both lenses in the first place? Or did you mean the extra less-than-half-a-stop 'advantage' that the 10-22 has on the 10-20?

You also state that it's 2 ounces lighter. To put it into perspective, a standard Canon 72mm circular polarizer weighs 3.2 ounces. Now when I go out anywhere I usually pack my backpack or camera bag with as much stuff as possible. If I think I'll need my polarizer, I throw it in the bag. I've never been able to tell the difference between having it or not having it in my bag, so I'm pretty sure that your 'it's lighter' arguement doesn't mean much either.

Anyway, I'm not trying to defend Sigma here, because they really don't need to be defended. I think that anyone that can get over the fact that they're not using an L or not using a Nikkor will see that Sigma lenses are just as well built and just as good optically as their more expensive counterparts. I just don't want to see Sigma shot down because of some reasoning from certain people who are misinforming the public from some misinformation that they read or heard from some other place.

Message edited by author 2006-09-17 16:44:56.

09/17/2006 04:52:01 PM · #20

Originally posted by deapee:

...

B74A, you state that the Canon is faster than the Sigma. Do you mean focusing speed? Is that something that you've concluded off the top of your head? Have you used both lenses and are only going off of personal feel? Have you seen some scientific research performed that gave you that idea, or are you just going off of what you read from some other Canon-elitest who has no experience using both lenses in the first place?

You also state that it's 2 ounces lighter. To put it into perspective, a standard Canon 72mm circular polarizer weighs 3.2 ounces. Now when I go out anywhere I usually pack my backpack or camera bag with as much stuff as possible. If I think I'll need my polarizer, I throw it in the bag. I've never been able to tell the difference between having it or not having it in my bag, so I'm pretty sure that your 'it's lighter' arguement doesn't mean much either.

Anyway, I'm not trying to defend Sigma here, because they really don't need to be defended. I think that anyone that can get over the fact that they're not using an L or not using a Nikkor will see that Sigma lenses are just as well built and just as good optically as their more expensive counterparts. I just don't want to see Sigma shot down because of some reasoning from certain people who are misinforming the public from some misinformation that they read or heard from some other place.

Speed: I do not mean focusing speed, sorry if I am not accurate enough. I meant the aperture.

Weight: Believe me, weight DOES count for me, it is one of the factors that have been holding me back from dSLRs until now. In my work I am positioning as passenger on airlines a lot, and I do not want to check in any of my precious electronics, like cameras (including lenses), computer, hard drives etc. Add to that personal essentials like passport, licenses, money etc, and you get close to the limit for carry-on luggage.

It might not mean a thing to you, but to me it does, and I didn't write that everyone should chose the Canon because it is three ounces lighter, but for ME it was a tough decision, and this is what made the scales tip towards Canon, in my regard.

I think you are being a but rough in your post, you could easily have made your point without being so harsh. I have JUST bought this dSLR today, I am no techie at all, and because both my lenses are Canon does not mean I am a Canon freak. But since Canon is the only manufacturer IS lens for Canon SLRs for now, anyway, my next lens will probably also be a Canon.

That does not mean I dislike Sigma, Tamron or the other brands around. I might even one day get a Bigma, if I could carry that around with regard to weight and size ...

Things are not always what they seem, you might not have meant it in such a rough way as it seems to me ... but go on, hit me for more detail if I have not been precise enough yet!

09/17/2006 04:58:19 PM · #21

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I bought a set of kenko extension tubes that I can use on my 70-200 and get as 'macro' as I want to, and have the advantage of the L glass...

I just strongly dislike seeing misinformation spread, especially when those who spread misinformation are rewarded for spreading it.

Do you really think that a 70-200 being an L gives you some advantage when using it with extension tubes for shooting macro vs a dedicated 105 2.8 macro lens? Sigma is a leader in optics and I'd be willing to put some money on the fact that every advantage lies with the 105 2.8 vs. the 70-200 with extension tubes when it comes to shooting macro.

I don't get too into technical details of lenses, I let those that feel like putting the time into pixel peeping, peep the pixels for me. It's no hidden fact that the Sigma rivals the Nikkor as far as image quality goes and I believe it's also common knowledge that the Nikkor macro exceeds the Canon as far as quality is concerned as well.

I don't consider any of what I stated to be misinformation. The only advantage I have with the 70-200 + extension tubes is the L glass. I'm no scientific survey though. All I know about the comparison between the two setups is from my personal experience. The only advantage that the Sigma has over this combination is the 1:1 ability. The optical results I get with the L glass and extenstion tubes are superior in my own work. I can't speak for anyone else who hasn't compared the two.

09/17/2006 04:58:46 PM · #22

Originally posted by B74A:

I think you are being a but rough in your post, you could easily have made your point without being so harsh. I have JUST bought this dSLR today, I am no techie at all, and because both my lenses are Canon does not mean I am a Canon freak. But since Canon is the only manufacturer IS lens for Canon SLRs for now, anyway, my next lens will probably also be a Canon.

Is there a specific part that you think is rough?

I mean you can argue that anything is a valid point for you and no one can ever prove you wrong. If you're that concerned about 2 ounces of weight being carried on an airplane, I think it would probably make more sense to buy a smaller toothbrush or a suitcase with smaller zippers than it would to use that specific reason to make the Canon a better buy than the Sigma.

09/17/2006 05:03:49 PM · #23

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I don't consider any of what I stated to be misinformation. The only advantage I have with the 70-200 + extension tubes is the L glass.

How is something being labeled an 'L' an advantage, especially when you're comparing shooting macro photography with glass that just wasn't designed for that purpose?

The glass used in the Sigma 105 2.8 is better at shooting close up than the 70-200 L is because there's a big difference in how you make the glass for shooting far away or close up. That's not soemthing that's open to argument John, it's pure fact.

09/17/2006 05:04:25 PM · #24

Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I don't consider any of what I stated to be misinformation. The only advantage I have with the 70-200 + extension tubes is the L glass.

How is something being labeled an 'L' an advantage, especially when you're comparing shooting macro photography with glass that just wasn't designed for that purpose?

The glass used in the Sigma 105 2.8 is better at shooting close up than the 70-200 L is because there's a big difference in how you make the glass for shooting far away or close up. That's not soemthing that's open to argument John, it's pure fact.

ok :)