Hopefully in the next few weeks I am going to start shooting interior and exterior real estate. I have been evaluating both the above lenses and am wondering if the extra cost of the Canon is worth it over Sigma f3.5 or Sigma f4-5.6. I am using Canon 60D. I also have 5D and the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 which I use for landscape, but want something much lighter. The Tokina is very heavy lens although I like this lense very much for landscape. Would like your thoughts on this lens choice.
I think the canon is worth it, the sigma is more prone to CA and flare, which are often a problem when there's a window in shot. I appreciate the lighter weight as well. My copy of the sigma was softer on one side, my canon is well aligned. I kept the Canon
When I wanted an ultrawide lens for my 7D I tested a bunch out, including the above mentioned Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16. Ultimately it came down to the Canon and Tokina, and for me, it was no competition... the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 was amazing.
I felt the IQ as quite a bit better, plus it's 2.8 throughout. Of course you're giving up some range, but for my purposes, I didn't like the fact that the Canon seemed to jump to 4.5 almost immediately after 10mm. However, if you're shooting real estate with a tripod, you're probably not needing a fast lens.
Finally, you mention weight as a factor... and the Tokina isn't a light lens... but for me that was a plus. It felt like a much more quality lens than even the Canon.
Thanks for the posts. The tokina 11-16 is a little short in range, otherwise I would have gone with it. I see the Canon has good flare resistance as compared to the sigma. Also seems like I have read quite a few posts regarding getting a good sigma copy.
I have a 10-22 that is really sharp and I quite enjoy the perspective on my 7D. However I primarily shoot with a 5Diii now, and have the 10-22 for sale. PM me if you're interested.
For architecture have you considered a TSE? I know that they are not as wide and not even close in cost, but they are suppose to be the bomb for architecture.
I tried the original Sigma 10-20/4-5.6. All three copies were fine on the side that was sharp. Maybe they've improved with the 10-20/3.5. Either way, the 10-22 is a better optic and not much more expensive.
p.1 #11 · Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 vs Sigma 10-20 f3.5
Thanks for all your replies. Love to try the 17mm TSE but at more than 2k its just not affordable. Sigma 8-16 would be equivalent to their 12-24, so I will look into that and see if is a lens I can use.
