| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2008 07:26:28 PM · #1 |
| I was looking at wide-angle lenses, and i'm wondering if the extra 200 bucks for the 10-22 is worth it? |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 07:33:19 PM · #2 |
| um yes, lol. I never looked at the sigma, but i love this lense. cons: its not L glass, and the canon hood is impossible to find, slim filters are over 100 dollars. you could buy the lense the easly spend another 150 in accesories just on this lense. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 07:55:45 PM · #3 |
| Here's a suggestion worth a look. The Tokina 12-24 F4 is an amazing lens and for the money you just can't beat it. This is a solidly built lens and it was designed for digital camera's and does not disappoint. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 08:06:16 PM · #4 |
Yes.
The tokina is very good. I've not tried the Sigma, but few sigma lenses impress me with their color/contrast.
The Canon is USM- practically instant focus. And there is NO flare with this lens - none, ever.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 08:08:20 PM · #5 |
| The $200 extra is well worth it. Do not hesitate to buy! |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 08:09:53 PM · #6 |
Canon 10-22mm for sure. Flare free to the max. Worth its weight in gold...
R.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 08:13:16 PM · #7 |
| The difference between 10mm and 12mm is quite noticeable. I rarely use my Canon 10-22mm at anything other than 10mm. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 08:19:51 PM · #8 |
This should be a sticky on "then internets" :-) Every photg forum has this as a regular question....
I am blaming Bear still for mine 18 months on... was too-and-frow between the Canon & Tokina mostly but liked the Sigma for the FF possibilities.... I find the Canon worth the extra $ and have forgotten about the extra $ now... The EF-s still gets to me cause at some point I want FF but the Canon is a great lens and it seems to keep it's value pretty well. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 08:28:25 PM · #9 |
the Canon 10-22 is fricken awesome a lot of the photos from my Florida trip and my 30 day challenge were taken with the 10-22 :)
-dave
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 08:36:04 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by robs:
This should be a sticky on "then internets" :-) Every photg forum has this as a regular question....
I am blaming Bear still for mine 18 months on... was too-and-frow between the Canon & Tokina mostly but liked the Sigma for the FF possibilities.... I find the Canon worth the extra $ and have forgotten about the extra $ now... The EF-s still gets to me cause at some point I want FF but the Canon is a great lens and it seems to keep it's value pretty well. |
I believe the Sigma 10-20 cannot do FF. The Sigma site says that it is exclusive to digital SLR cameras. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 08:47:33 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 09:37:59 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 09:41:55 PM · #13 |
| I bought it and am LOVING IT! |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 09:44:40 PM · #14 |
Just got mine a few days ago...... I LOVE this lens!
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 10:10:39 PM · #15 |
| I have the Canon 10-22 and I say its worth every penny. I love it. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:12:08 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
I believe the Sigma 10-20 cannot do FF. The Sigma site says that it is exclusive to digital SLR cameras. |
Oops, Your right.... It's the 12-24 that is FF whereas the 10-20 is digi; although EF mount, so you might be able to use it on a FF but with black corners on the wide end, not sure. |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:08:52 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by robs:
Oops, Your right.... It's the 12-24 that is FF whereas the 10-20 is digi; although EF mount, so you might be able to use it on a FF but with black corners on the wide end, not sure. |
The Sigma 10-20 is EF mount and can be used on a FF body (ie 5D), though it won't cover the full sensor. From the samples, though, I'd say you're better of with a Canon 17-40 or Sigma 12-24 on the 5D.
Interesting discussion - nobody votes for the Sigma 10-20 over the Canon 10-22 ? ? |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:13:03 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
I believe the Sigma 10-20 cannot do FF. The Sigma site says that it is exclusive to digital SLR cameras. |
Oops, Your right.... It's the 12-24 that is FF whereas the 10-20 is digi; although EF mount, so you might be able to use it on a FF but with black corners on the wide end, not sure. |
Just for the record, none of the lenses that are being discussed in this forum thread are "full frame" lenses. They all cast a smaller image circle than a 35mm frame. The Sigma and Tokina will mount to an EF mount but will have SEVERE vignetting. The EF-s will not mount at all since it will smash your mirror as it flips up. I think the widest full frame (rectangular) lens is the Canon 14mm f/2.8L but I may be wrong.
Message edited by author 2008-03-05 00:13:37.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:30:23 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Just for the record, none of the lenses that are being discussed in this forum thread are "full frame" lenses. |
Well, Sigma seems to think the 12-24 is FF :-). |
|
|
|
03/05/2008 12:32:26 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Just for the record, none of the lenses that are being discussed in this forum thread are "full frame" lenses. |
Well, Sigma seems to think the 12-24 is FF :-). |
Oops...Forgot about that one, I thought they were talking about the Tokina. My bad! I correct my statement then that the SIGMA 12-24 is the widest rectangular full frame lens available, to my knowledge.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 04:36:00 PM EDT.
