# Canon 10 -22mm or Sigma 10 - 20mm?



## CxThree (Dec 26, 2009)

If you were buying one today, which would you get and why?


----------



## Dao (Dec 27, 2009)

If money is not an issue, I will buy the Canon.  Otherwise, it is going to be Sigma.


----------



## CxThree (Dec 27, 2009)

Good point.  I should have mentioned that.

There's a price difference between the 2 lenses, but I don't wnat that to be a factor.


----------



## Mr. Murmeli (Dec 27, 2009)

I've been thinking about this exact same question and after a significant amount of research in the internet I've come to a conclusion:

Many people seem to be happy with their cheaper Sigma since it does decent job at 10mm. Dpreview has a thorough test of the Sigma and they said it does indeed work @ 10 mm when stopped down, even to f/11. BUT the Sigma is apparently much worse at range 11-16mm and anyways it has to be stopped down quite a bit at any focal length. 

Sigma has "moustache" distortion at 10mm whereas Canon has more common barrel, which is easier to fix in PP. 

Canon is somewhat faster (though not significantly).

Canon is more usable across it's whole focal length range.

Sigma seems to feel slightly sturdier, thouh IMO that tells nothing about how well either of them is actually built (inside). 

Many, many people seem to agree that if money is not an issue and you want the best, go for the Canon. That's disappointing to me since I do want the lens to work well on all it's focal lengths, especially since Sigma's distortion may be unfixable at some situations at it's widest angle. But I certainly wouldn't want to spend an extra >200$ on UWA but it seems I'm gonna. 

I hope this helps, and I would suggest you to read this: Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Though I would also appreciate other peoples opinions on this one!


----------



## icassell (Dec 27, 2009)

Mr. Murmeli said:


> . BUT the Sigma is apparently much worse at range 11-16mm and anyways it has to be stopped down quite a bit at any focal length.
> !



I don't feel that either of these statements are correct.  I did a side-side test when I bought my Sigma  f/4-5.6 (and I could have afforded the Canon) and did not feel it was MUCH worse anywhere in its range.  In fact, it was difficult to tell the difference. I'm sure that careful inspection may give Canon the slight edge, but there is no huge difference. It does NOT need to be stopped down quite a bit at any focal length.  I love the lens and didn't feel that the rather large price differential was worth it. I would buy the Sigma again in a heartbeat.


----------



## cfusionpm (Dec 27, 2009)

I would pick the Canon (and I did). Also, here is a nice comparisson of those and three more lenses: Juza Nature Photography


----------



## chip (Dec 27, 2009)

if money is not a factor definitely go with the Canon. it is sharper and better made.


----------



## CxThree (Dec 27, 2009)

Thanks everyone.


----------



## harleyrider (Dec 28, 2009)

tokina 11-16 2.8 or tokina 12-24 f4


----------



## CxThree (Dec 28, 2009)

Harleyrider - What's your reason for the Tokina?  

Cfusionmp -   Thanks for the review link from above.  Thats a good read on the wide angle choices.


----------

