The Canon 10-22 is the gold standard by which all other super wide, crop sensor lenses are measured. The only real competitor IMO is Sigma's 8-16mm (for sheer width rather than image quality).
which one would give me better image quality? I guess Canon?
As scalvert said, Canon's is the gold standard. If you want top image quality it's the way to go.
That being said, the ultra wide selection is not like your typical ~18 to ~300 range of lenses. There are no crappy kit lenses in the ultra wide range. So even the lesser performers still have excellent image quality.
I have the Sigma 10-20 and love it, I don't seem to have a problem with the flare, then again I watch for that and work around it to avoid it when possible.
It is quite sharp and I use a wide angle extra thin polarizer filter with it which hasn't caused any real vignetting.
If you're thinking about moving to full frame, the Sigma 12-24 is still in a class of its own.
that is where I am having challenge and to be honest moving to full frame means by another standard zoom lens means add another 500-600 bucks for good lens on top of full frame cost :(
so would be good to keep my 50d or move to another 8d-9d or something that would appeal me and still support EF-S lens :)
Next week I will be heading out to Cape May, NJ and take some nice sunrise and sunset shots! Also tomorrow we have fireworks in Mercer county park in NJ and will be using this for that too!
Will play around with the lens to see how it behaves!
I had the 10-22mm
Superb lens.
I kept the box and sold it for £60 less than I bought it for.
That is the most compelling two reasons I have.
You'll enjoy using it. It will hold its value.
Hope it helps.
I've had both...the Canon when I was a Canon user, and then the Sigma now.
I liked the Canon a lot...superb lens. But then again I really like the Sigma as well. Other than the additional range though, I'm not sure the Canon is worth $300 more. I haven't had flare problems either.
I have the sigma 10-20, my favorite lens.
Head to head here.
It outperforms the canon 10-22 so is now the new gold standard in this range ;-)
How do you come to the conclusion it outperforms the canon. The canon scored higher in every category, plus got 4.5 stars in landscape when the sigma got 3.5.
Maybe im reading the results wrong.
Also the sigma was tested on Nikon. Invalidates any direct comparison by that alone.
I have the sigma 10-20, my favorite lens.
Head to head here.
It outperforms the canon 10-22 so is now the new gold standard in this range ;-)
How do you come to the conclusion it outperforms the canon. The canon scored higher in every category, plus got 4.5 stars in landscape when the sigma got 3.5.
Maybe im reading the results wrong.
Also the sigma was tested on Nikon. Invalidates any direct comparison by that alone.
It wasn`t my conclusion it was there`s :)
Say`s here "The Sigma’s results are identical to and sometimes even slightly better than those of the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED and the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM."
Also the sigma was tested on Nikon. Invalidates any direct comparison by that alone.
Plus, the Sigma was compared at 12mm, the Canon at 10mm, for what reason I have no clue. But, typically, these lenses perform a bit better when zoomed in about 10-15% from the widest end...
I had the Canon for a week (returned because I wont be able to use it with my Mark II) and loved it. I used it in Rocky Mountain National Park and was able to capture everything I wanted. If you ever go to a full frame that lens is equal to a 16-35mm which is actually twice as much. If you will always have a crop sensor then get the best crop sensor wide angle (Canon) lens you can.
Two details worth noting... the Sigma has an 82mm filter size vs. 77mm on the Canon. That might make a difference if you're switching filters between lenses or want to save money (a $40 difference on a Hoya 16X ND filter). Also, newer Canon cameras can correct for lens aberrations to improve image quality, but 3rd party lenses can't take advantage of that feature.
