 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2007Canon EF-S 10-22mm VS Sigma 10-20mm - Which one to buy?
I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus Lens - for $675 OR - Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Autofocus Lens - for $500 So far I've only bought Canon as i rely on their anti-shake technology, however neither of these lenses have it built in - so I'm considering buying my 1st Sigma lens (as it almost 200 bones cheaper). Could anyone make suggestions as to which lens they prefer and why? I would especially like to hear of testimonials from one or both lenses if possible. thanks so much, dave > I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: > - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > thanks so much, dave I really like the Canon, the second lens I bought for use on a 20D. I'd like it even better if I could use it on my 5D, bought a year and a half later. I believe the Sigma (pretty good reviews IIRC) would fit the 5D, and might have saved me buying yet another lens I really like, the Canon 17-40.  SignatureFrank ess > I really like the Canon, the second lens I bought for use on a 20D. I'd > like it even better if I could use it on my 5D, bought a year and a half > later. I believe the Sigma (pretty good reviews IIRC) would fit the 5D, > and might have saved me buying yet another lens I really like, the Canon > 17-40. It will fit physically but you must set it to 15mm to cover the full frame - which it can do. Anything shorter and you get a circle or cut-off-corners circle picture. Anyone intended to buy a 5D should consider the Sigma 12-24mm instead. David >> I really like the Canon, the second lens I bought for use on a >> 20D. I'd like it even better if I could use it on my 5D, bought a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Anyone intended to buy a 5D should consider the Sigma 12-24mm > instead. Thanks, David. I'd never tried it, actually, since I am such a scairdy-cat about all those flipping and twisting things going on inside, and I thought I remembered there was potentially disastrous stuff in the combination. Still, the 17-40 works good in the range I need. I neglected to post the URLs of my wide-angle demo albums, illustrative but not definitive: http://www.fototime.com/inv/72B40D6067A68E5 includes a link to some 20D items, as well. http://www.fototime.com/inv/CD6607D885B4B82 opens in a 17-40 5D shot that was used with three other similars in a tri-fold brochure, includes a link to a couple more 10-22 images. SignatureFrank ess >>> I really like the Canon, the second lens I bought for use on a >>> 20D. I'd like it even better if I could use it on my 5D, bought a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > those flipping and twisting things going on inside, and I thought I > remembered there was potentially disastrous stuff in the combination. I'm a little confused here but I think he was talking about the Sigma. The EF-S lenses will hit the mirror on anything but EF-S series cameras I thought? Greg SignatureTicketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky >>>> I really like the Canon, the second lens I bought for use on a >>>> 20D. I'd like it even better if I could use it on my 5D, bought a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > EF-S lenses will hit the mirror on anything but EF-S series cameras I > thought? Although Canon EF-S lenses won't mount safely on the 5D, many (all?) third party APS-C superwide lenses (in the Canon mount) will. This is because they need to support the 10D, which can't take EF-S lenses. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: >> - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and might have saved me buying yet another lens I really like, the Canon > 17-40. The Sigma 12-24 can be used on a FF. Have not had a chance to try it yet, but as a recent user of a 40D I'd like to give it a go sometime soon. > I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: > - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > thanks so much, dave I went into my local dealer to buy the Canon and was very surprised when he suggested that I try the Sigma. Previously he had been solidly in favour of the Canon lens in other focal lengths.. His opinion was that the Sigma was the slightly better lens, not to mention signicantly cheaper.. Anyway, I took a few shot with both and couldn't really see any difference between them. (All shot at the 10mm end BTW..) I've been very happy with the Sigma.. My other lenses are the 24-105L and the 100-400L for what it's worth.. Main thing is, which ever way you call it, be happy with your choice ! T. >> I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: >> - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Main thing is, which ever way you call it, be happy with your choice ! Good job, Tony: You have the whole range covered with only three lenses! I have the Canon 10-22 and I have been very happy with it. However I have zero experience with the Sigma, in fact it has been at least 10 years since I have owned a Sigma, but I was at least satisfied with the ones I have had. > I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: > - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > thanks so much, dave SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit The optical differences between lenses in this focal range from different manufacturers are not great. Hence I can see no reason to buy the Canon over the Sigma. These lenses, particularly at the wide end, are not that easy to use because of both distortion inherent to the focal length and the linear distortion of the lenses themselves. If you have a lens in the 18-55/70 range, once you get the ultra wide compare the two lenses at equivalent focal lengths. You may be surprised by what you see. Check out the Tokina 12-24 F/4. Very sharp. You don't need IS for these wide of a lens. Steve > I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: > - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > thanks so much, dave >Check out the Tokina 12-24 F/4. >Very sharp. You don't need IS for these wide of a lens. I have the Tokina and can second this opinion. BUT: it is not a full-frame lens. The Sigma is. So if one is thinking about buying a full frame Canon in the near future... Signature--- Paul J. Gans > I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: > - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > thanks so much, dave http://www.rentglass.com/shop.aspx?type=Canon SignatureSlack > I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: > - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > thanks so much, dave The Sigma is a relatively "old" design lens and was never optimised for digital sensors. Subsequently, you can expect it to cause some degree of purple fringing via sensor pixel overload. It looks much like chromatic Aberrations. Most noticeable where backlit dark and white sharply meet. Lenses designed for digital cameras are not necessarily only for APS size sensors. How they direct light to the sensor differentiates them from earlier designs and are probably more useful on an APS sensor. Film has no particular preference for how light falls on the film plane. DSLRs however use micro lenses on the sensors. It is these micro lenses that are quirky in their performance when image light falls at an angle instead of straight on to them. The theory Olympus pioneered for "Digital" specific lenses suggests it is possible to make the light from the lens fall straight to the sensor rather than having a small rear element which sends the light in a cone shape, causing the edge of the image to hit the microlenses at an angle. I use a Tamron 11 -19 (Di) lens on my 20D. I bought this purely on it's price for one particular job. I now use it regularly but whenever I go past about 15mm (towards 11mm) I have to use some software to fix mild pincushion and pronounced edge distortion. No big deal and I notice the same problem with a 24 - 70 Canon "L" lens on my 5D. If you can believe the magazine reviewer's, the Tamron is the pick of them. It has a noisy (and slow) focus motor but optically I'd rate it very good to excellent - having regard for the distortions all UWA lenses produce. Douglas > > I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: > > - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The Sigma is a relatively "old" design lens and was never optimised for > digital sensors. wrong. the sigma 10-20 is definitely designed for digital sensors. <http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3301&navigat or=6> Super wide-angle zoom lens designed exclusively for digital SLR cameras. ... Most Appropriate Coating for Digital SLR Cameras The new multi layer lens coating and lens design reduce flare and ghost, which is a common problem with digital cameras and also creates an optimum color balance through the entire zoom range ... Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM super wide-angle zoom lens, exclusively designed for digital SLR...the Sigma 10-20mm is an excellent investment for owners of DSLRs with APS-C format sensors. > Subsequently, you can expect it to cause some degree of > purple fringing via sensor pixel overload. It looks much like chromatic > Aberrations. Most noticeable where backlit dark and white sharply meet. purple fringing is usually chromatic aberration, not 'pixel overload.' however, the typical problem with the 10-20 is decentering, where one side is not as sharp as the other. > Lenses designed for digital cameras are not necessarily only for APS size > sensors. How they direct light to the sensor differentiates them from > earlier designs and are probably more useful on an APS sensor. actually, it is the coatings on the rear elements that make the difference, because the sensor is more reflective than film. <http://www.pbase.com/pganzel/ccd_lens_flare_testing> > Film has no particular preference for how light falls on the film plane. > DSLRs however use micro lenses on the sensors. It is these micro lenses that > are quirky in their performance when image light falls at an angle instead > of straight on to them. it isn't as big of a deal as one might think, but olympus sure got a lot of mileage out of the ad campaign. > The theory Olympus pioneered for "Digital" specific lenses suggests it is > possible to make the light from the lens fall straight to the sensor rather > than having a small rear element which sends the light in a cone shape, > causing the edge of the image to hit the microlenses at an angle. it's been done long before olympus made a big deal out of it. > If you can believe the magazine reviewer's, the Tamron is the pick of them. > It has a noisy (and slow) focus motor but optically I'd rate it very good to > excellent - having regard for the distortions all UWA lenses produce. which magazine reviewers are those? of the three superwides, the sigma 10-20, the tokina 12-24 and the tamron 11-18, the tamron has the smallest range and costs more than either the sigma or tokina. nikonians did a review of those three along with nikon's 12-24 and the tamron did not rate well -- its only claim to fame was 'most portable lens.' <http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_a ngles_shootout/super-wide_shootout_6.html> >> > I'm going to buy one of these lenses for my Canon 30D: >> > - Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > <http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_a > ngles_shootout/super-wide_shootout_6.html> Congratulations! I post my opinion as an ex Sigma dealer and working Photographer. You post a host of links to other people's opinions. Do you have one of your own, by any chance? Sigma lenses that have coatings Sigma claim are developed for digital cameras are only a patch coating over old spec lenses to make out they are on top of the issue. Sort of like using UV auto film on a piece of glass you hold over the lens when you don't have a UV filter. In case you missed it... The DC part of it description is "Digital Coating" which is why it is not a "designed for digital" lens. It's element design dates back to 2004. I never mentioned Tokina lenses. UWA lenses from Tamron and Sigma are not in the same class when used on Nikons. The direct comparison I read referred to Canon and Tamron on APS size DSLRs manufactured by Canon. Which incidentally is the brand the OP asked about. The reviewer thought Tamron to produce better quality images than the Canon lens... Both are APS size lenses. I agree, having owned both. Which of the three lenses do you own "nospam"? If you really need to disbelieve me. I asked Jeeves for a review of Canon Tamron and got this in the 3rd line down. How simple is that? http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/tamron%2011-18mm.shtml Watch the wrap! Douglas > Congratulations! thank you. > I post my opinion as an ex Sigma dealer and working Photographer. You post a > host of links to other people's opinions. Do you have one of your own, by > any chance? i posted a link to sigma themselves who said it was designed for digital. i'll take their word over yours. and i did own the sigma 10-20 for a brief time, but chose the tokina 12-24 for several reasons, including that my copy had the well documented decentering issue and it did not focus reliably at the widest focal lengths. i ruled out the tamron early on because it cost more and did less than the sigma did. the tokina wasn't perfect either (nothing is) but it had the least number of issues of the group, at least for what i wanted from a super-wide lens. > Sigma lenses that have coatings Sigma claim are developed for digital > cameras are only a patch coating over old spec lenses to make out they are > on top of the issue. Sort of like using UV auto film on a piece of glass you > hold over the lens when you don't have a UV filter. you are privy to the exact formula of the coating? > In case you missed it... The DC part of it description is "Digital Coating" > which is why it is not a "designed for digital" lens. It's element design > dates back to 2004. it quite clearly states on sigma's website that it was 'designed exclusively for digital slr cameras.' also, nikon came out with the d1 in 1999 and canon introduced the d30 in 2000, along with sigma's own slr in 2002, so a lens that came out several years later which *only* works on a crop-sensor digital camera very clearly *is* designed for digital slrs. > I never mentioned Tokina lenses. UWA lenses from Tamron and Sigma are not in > the same class when used on Nikons. The direct comparison I read referred to > Canon and Tamron on APS size DSLRs manufactured by Canon. Which incidentally > is the brand the OP asked about. then look at photozone's reviews, all tested on a canon slr: <http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1118_4556/index.htm> The Tamron AF 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di II SP is surely capable to deliver decent quality images but the truth is that the competition is generally better in most aspects. Regarding the comparatively slow speed (max. aperture), the subjectively lower build quality as well as the rather limited zoom range it is also a bit strange that Tamron is asking a higher price point compared to the Sigma and Tokina counterparts (locally at least). This doesn't seem to leave many arguments in favour of the lens. photozone liked both the canon 10-22 and the sigma 10-20, and they also liked the tokina 12-24, but found it suffered from a lot of chromatic aberration. however, that is very easy to fix. <http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm> <http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456/index.htm> <http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4/index.htm> > If you really need to disbelieve me. I asked Jeeves for a review of Canon > Tamron and got this in the 3rd line down. How simple is that? > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/tamron%2011-18mm.shtml > Watch the wrap! it didn't wrap (even when quoted), and even if it did, my newsreader deals with urls that span multiple lines without a problem. perhaps you should upgrade to one that does. as for the 'review', i couldn't help but laugh after reading the first paragraph on the page: This is not a review. It is simply a quick evaluation of the new Tamron 11-18mm based on a few days of casual shooting. No rigorous testing of the lens has been performed and due to time constraints on the availability of this lens for evaluation, none is currently planned. so this 'non-review' somehow proves the superiourity of the lens, exactly how? >> Congratulations! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > i posted a link to sigma themselves who said it was designed for > digital. i'll take their word over yours. So will I. I use the Sigma, and have tried the Tokina. For an ultra-wide lens with the inevitability of getting the sun or bright light in the frame in many practical shooting conditions, it's remarkably resistant to flare problems. So IMO it's coatings are extremely effective. > and i did own the sigma 10-20 for a brief time, but chose the tokina > 12-24 for several reasons, including that my copy had the well [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (nothing is) but it had the least number of issues of the group, at > least for what i wanted from a super-wide lens. I looked at the Tamron too, and based on the apparent build quality vs the Sigma, let alone the Tokina, it came last. >> Sigma lenses that have coatings Sigma claim are developed for digital >> cameras are only a patch coating over old spec lenses to make out they are >> on top of the issue. Sort of like using UV auto film on a piece of glass you >> hold over the lens when you don't have a UV filter. > > you are privy to the exact formula of the coating? If you look at lenses that Sigma "updated for digital" such as the 105 EX DG macro, they changed the optical formula. >> In case you missed it... The DC part of it description is "Digital Coating" >> which is why it is not a "designed for digital" lens. It's element design [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Canon and Tamron on APS size DSLRs manufactured by Canon. Which incidentally >> is the brand the OP asked about. The Sigma kills the Tamron on all tests I've seen - except perhaps Ken Rockwell's - where he tested a Sigma that was very badly decentered, and judging by his comments about squeaking noisy HSM mechanism, had probably been dropped or damaged. >>> Congratulations! >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > judging by his comments about squeaking noisy HSM mechanism, had probably > been dropped or damaged. My experience with Sigma UWA lenses has been way to variable for me to endorse one. I'm glad you got a good one. Many of my former customers got some worse then the one Ken Rockwell tested. For a company struggling to shake off their past reputation for careless assembly, this lens is evidence they have a long way to go. Incidentally I have a number of Sigma lenses that leave Canon equivalents in the dust for image quality. Sadly I only got these from being able to test a lot of the same model and pick the best one. I bought my Tamron over the counter, something I would never, ever do with a Sigma lens. My very first shot at 11mm with the Tamron: http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/portfolio/tamron11-18pic.jpg I don't dispute the quality of Sigma lenses. I don't dispute the quality of my Tamron lens either. Given the opportunity to test several Sigma lenses and study their images in a diagnostic program, I would probably have bought a Sigma but not having that facility, I chose the Tamron. They are cheap, known to be reliable and produce a nice image. Douglas >>>> Congratulations! >>> thank you. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Douglas "The Tamron AF 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di II SP is surely capable to deliver decent quality images but the truth is that the competition is generally better in most aspects. Regarding the comparatively slow speed (max. aperture), the subjectively lower build quality as well as the rather limited zoom range it is also a bit strange that Tamron is asking a higher price point compared to the Sigma and Tokina counterparts (locally at least). This doesn't seem to leave many arguments in favour of the lens. " That's Photozone's summary. OTOH Ken Rockwell doesn't agree... Then again he doesn't recommend using raw files or a tripod. You make some generalisations. I don't hear about sample variation with Sigma's 105 EX, or 150 EX HSM. I do see consistent reviews where MTF and CA performance are unsurpassed. Sigma / Tokina / Tamron / Nikon / Canon etc make some bad cheap lenses. There's a ready market out there for them. The 10-20 I have was the first one I looked at - it came via mail order. I only know a couple of other people with the lens, and their's seem to be as good as mine. I suspect that reading internet forums - especially DPReview - is bad for your lenses. > >> In article <CTWUi.6080$CN4.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Douglas > >> <j...@the.groups> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > - Show quoted text - This is Dave here the OP - thanks to all for a wonderful discussion thread, more than I'd hoped for. After carefully reading these postings and doing additional research, I'm now leaning towards either the Sigma AF 12-24mm or Tokina AF 12-24mm. In my (humble and somewhat ignorant) opinion, the former is possibly the best overall lens choice for me but a bit pricey, the latter also seems to perform well but can't mount full frame cameras (and I may be headed that way in 1 - 2 years). Thanks again, I'm very grateful. > This is Dave here the OP - thanks to all for a wonderful discussion > thread, more than I'd hoped for. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > latter also seems to perform well but can't mount full frame cameras > (and I may be headed that way in 1 - 2 years). actually, the tokina will cover a full frame sensor from about 17mm or so out to 24mm. the sigma will not cover a full frame at any length. >> This is Dave here the OP - thanks to all for a wonderful discussion >> thread, more than I'd hoped for. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > actually, the tokina will cover a full frame sensor from about 17mm or > so out to 24mm. the sigma will not cover a full frame at any length. Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 DG HSM is a full frame lens. It does this on a FF camera: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/79930134/large (The curving building is actually curved: the lens maps straight lines in subject space onto straight lines on the film/sensor plane quite nicely.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >> After carefully reading these postings and doing additional research, > >> I'm now leaning towards either the Sigma AF 12-24mm or Tokina AF [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 DG HSM is a full frame lens. yep, my mistake. i was thinking of the sigma 10-20mm, discussed earlier i the thread. >> The Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 DG HSM is a full frame lens. > > yep, my mistake. i was thinking of the sigma 10-20mm, discussed > earlier i the thread. And still alive and well in the title: you ain't the only one who got confused. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.