p.1 #2 · [pics] Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-22 Anyone?
Ive played around with both but dont have any real test shots with a 10-22 noir a 10-20, but I just got my 10-20 tonight, so there is your answer. I am loving it so far and that wideangle look is just gorgeous.
... which made the Sigma 10-20 a bit more interesting for me. It's tested very well. I was surprised that it can be used from 11mm onwards on a 1.3x crop camera.
The difference from 20mm vs. 22mm can easily be solved by a crop.
p.1 #7 · [pics] Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-22 Anyone?
I am also tossing up between these two. What I've seen reported is that the Sigma is very good as is the Canon.
I am wondering - what aspects should I be looking at to justify the difference in price? This lens will also be used in a housing underwater. I have a 20D if that matters.
p.1 #8 · [pics] Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-22 Anyone?
if the sigma is as good a it looks, it makes sense for sevral resons, 1st it comes with a hood and a bag, second down in australia you can get the sigma 10-20 a vertical grip for a XT and a medium manfroto tripod ( or a 580ex flash) for the same price as the canon, as much as would love to own the canon it is VERY hard to justify the extra expence for that 2mm at the long end. If it was at the short end such as the 12-24 then i would have no problems in paying the difrence
p.1 #9 · [pics] Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-22 Anyone?
A major Dutch camera-shop and distributer is not selling the Sigma 10-20 because of "compatibility issues with the 350D and 20D giving lots of Err99 problems".
I've not yet seen any report of that yet on any forum though.
p.1 #10 · [pics] Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-22 Anyone?
Hmmm, I haven't seen any of those errors reported either.
I'll be buying the lens in the US in two weeks when I get back.
So far I am really leaning towards the Sigma...I won't miss the long end and that $250 difference is a nice incentive. Unless someone has used both or seen something that is pretty negative on the Sigma.
one thing I haven't found is whether the Sigma is an internal focus mechanism or if the length changes through the range?? I believe the Canon does not change. That might be an issue for me as I will be housing this lens for underwater...ideas?
p.1 #11 · [pics] Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-22 Anyone?
alcina wrote:
one thing I haven't found is whether the Sigma is an internal focus mechanism or if the length changes through the range?? I believe the Canon does not change. That might be an issue for me as I will be housing this lens for underwater...ideas?
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=362 wrote:
Zooming extends the lens length by barely 5mm
The only negative I heard of the Sigma is that it's colors are a bit more flat then the Canon and Tokina. However in comparison-shots I did not see that...
Aug 30, 2005 at 03:21 PM
someet Offline • • • [X]
p.1 #12 · [pics] Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-22 Anyone?
John, the two pictures you have posted.. how have they been post processed... there is definitely different amt of 'light' in the two images.
p.1 #13 · [pics] Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-22 Anyone?
Disclaimer: I own the 10-22 and am very happy with it....
A while back I posted some shots taken with the Canon on a trip to the Chilean Patagonia you can see them here
One difference that I've noticed between (at least) my Canon and the Sigma photos I've seen posted is not so much in sharpness, but in color saturation. The Sigma lens seems a bit flatter to me with muddier colors. On the other hand there is a $igma-ificant price delta which makes the 10-20 pretty attractive.
p.1 #14 · [pics] Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-22 Anyone?
byteseller wrote:
One difference that I've noticed between (at least) my Canon and the Sigma photos I've seen posted is not so much in sharpness, but in color saturation. The Sigma lens seems a bit flatter to me with muddier colors. On the other hand there is a $igma-ificant price delta which makes the 10-20 pretty attractive.
I''ve read that before but didn't see actual "proof" of that. Can you give me an example?
I went back to the shop and We tried another sample which produced almost exactly the same contour mustashe barrel distortion, loop sided to the rhs.
Also, on page 2 of my gallery, the "perth city skyline" shot. I also shot at 17mm with the sigma then swapped back to the 18-55mm kit lens at 18mm. For overall picture quality the kit lens destroyed the sigma.
There is a building (next to the tall building with the top cut at 45 degrees rhs) with a large sign on it, BGC in red capital letters. In the sigma shot you cannot read what the sign says at all, it is just a blurred red patch. With the kit lens you could actually read the sign pretty easily. I also took much the same sort of shot with my 24-85mm at 24mm in which the BGC red sign was very clear, though I guess there is a bit of difference between 17mm & 24mm.
Edit.
Ive posted centre crops of the two shots, one from the sigma @ 17mm and the one from the kit lens @ 18mm. It might be hard to see but when expanded to 300%, it is pretty obvious to see that the kit lens is better.
p.1 #18 · [pics] Canon 10-22 vs Sigma 10-22 Anyone?
Bob,
This is a direct quote from the sigma page.
“This lens is equipped with an inner focusing system, and the models which are equipped with HSM system provide quiet, high speed autofocus shooting and also offer full time manual focusing. It has a minimum focusing distance of 24cm (9.4») at all focal lengths. The non-rotating lens barrel perfectly suits the petal shaped lens hood. A circular polarizing filter can also be used conveniently. ” I’m still waiting on mine. Just a few more days to go. I paid $475.00 for it.
