If you have plans in the future to upgrade to a full frame body, go for the 12-24 as that is also compatible with 35mm/full frame sensors. It's currently the widest lens in existence for full frame :o
But if you don't see that happening anytime soon, the 10-20 will be wider on crop bodies, obviously.
I love my "Popeye" (Sigma 12-24), but unless you're going full frame or to a 1D series camera, the 10-20 will be wider. Have you considered the Canon 10-22?
As far as comparing coverage, the difference between 10mm and 12mm is a whopping 20%, and it makes a significant difference in coverage. By way of comparison, that's the same percentage as between 200mm and 240mm...
Sorry to bother, I find the Sigma 12-24 being costlier than 10-20 .. although the coverage of 10-20 is more .. also is the Sigma 10-20 not suitable for full frame cameras.
Sigma 12-24 or 10-20 ... whats the difference and which is more useful for wide angle landscape photography
I’m partial to the Canon 10-22. Someone had mentioned on another online forum that this lens, if it weren’t for its EF-S designation, would be considered an “L” lens because of the quality. Not to mention it’s resale value! ;-)
Finally, as others have mentioned, that lens is not for cameras with full-frame sensors. If you are considering this for your Rebel, then it'll work fine.
Sigma 12-24 or 10-20 ... whats the difference and which is more useful for wide angle landscape photography
I’m partial to the Canon 10-22. Someone had mentioned on another online forum that this lens, if it weren’t for its EF-S designation, would be considered an “L” lens because of the quality. Not to mention it’s resale value! ;-)
Finally, as others have mentioned, that lens is not for cameras with full-frame sensors. If you are considering this for your Rebel, then it'll work fine.
Thanks for sharing the photos .. they are excellent. I have heard that at that aperture there will be bit of distortion but looking at your photos there doesn't seem to be any ... how is that?
I have heard that at that aperture there will be bit of distortion but looking at your photos there doesn't seem to be any ... how is that?
This is WHY so many people sing the praises of the Canon 10-22mm; it is essentially distortion-free throughout its zoom range and at all apertures. It's an extremely well-engineered ultrawide, optically. It's also worth noting that the lens is virtually flare-free; you can include the sun IN your image and get only marginal flare. That's really useful with such a wide angle lens, because it's a situation that happens a lot.
Bear in mind that the distortion we are talking about here is OPTICAL distortion; barrel distortion, pincushioning, stuff like that — whatever makes a straight line near the edges of the image appear to be curved. ALL ultrawides produce the sort of "distortion" that makes circular objects near the edges become ellipses, and this cannot be avoided; it has nothing to do with the optics, it's just the way spherical 3D objects render when they are mapped to flat surfaces at an oblique angle. For proof-of-concept, place a marble on a white sheet of paper and illuminate it with a flashlight. Note how, as you drop the flashlight lower and lower, so its beam is closer to parallel to the surface of the paper, the marbles shadow becomes a more and more elongated ellipse; that's what's happening at the edge of the image frame with an ultrawide.
Here's a challenge entry of mine that was shot at 10mm with the Canon: the ball's placement was dictated largely by the conflict between my desire to have it be a huge foreground object vs. the need to place it centrally to minimize this inevitable distortion.
I have heard that at that aperture there will be bit of distortion but looking at your photos there doesn't seem to be any ... how is that?
This is WHY so many people sing the praises of the Canon 10-22mm; it is essentially distortion-free throughout its zoom range and at all apertures. It's an extremely well-engineered ultrawide, optically. It's also worth noting that the lens is virtually flare-free; you can include the sun IN your image and get only marginal flare. That's really useful with such a wide angle lens, because it's a situation that happens a lot.
Bear in mind that the distortion we are talking about here is OPTICAL distortion; barrel distortion, pincushioning, stuff like that — whatever makes a straight line near the edges of the image appear to be curved. ALL ultrawides produce the sort of "distortion" that makes circular objects near the edges become ellipses, and this cannot be avoided; it has nothing to do with the optics, it's just the way spherical 3D objects render when they are mapped to flat surfaces at an oblique angle. For proof-of-concept, place a marble on a white sheet of paper and illuminate it with a flashlight. Note how, as you drop the flashlight lower and lower, so its beam is closer to parallel to the surface of the paper, the marbles shadow becomes a more and more elongated ellipse; that's what's happening at the edge of the image frame with an ultrawide.
Here's a challenge entry of mine that was shot at 10mm with the Canon: the ball's placement was dictated largely by the conflict between my desire to have it be a huge foreground object vs. the need to place it centrally to minimize this inevitable distortion.
R.
Robert you are a walking encyclopedia! Now only if we could plug you in and access your knowledge with a click of a button when we are shooting and pulling our hair out with problems.
Sigma 12-24 or 10-20 ... whats the difference and which is more useful for wide angle landscape photography
I’m partial to the Canon 10-22. Someone had mentioned on another online forum that this lens, if it weren’t for its EF-S designation, would be considered an “L” lens because of the quality. Not to mention it’s resale value! ;-)
Finally, as others have mentioned, that lens is not for cameras with full-frame sensors. If you are considering this for your Rebel, then it'll work fine.
Thanks for sharing the photos .. they are excellent. I have heard that at that aperture there will be bit of distortion but looking at your photos there doesn't seem to be any ... how is that?
Robert has already answered that question much better that I could have.
If I may add, you generally have control on the amount of distortion (or lack thereof) by the way you shoot the subject (e.g. the height at which the camera rests during exposure and the angle of the lens in relation to your subject). You can have quite a bit of distortion if that is the result you are going for, or you can have no distortion--it's up to you.
I am also considering the Sigma 10-20. I think it depends on what you are shooting. I am a city boy and cannot stand to be in the woods, so to speak, for more than a coupe of days at a time. Yet I love shooting nature, landscapes, animals, etc.
From what I have read on the Sigma 10-20 there is distortion to be considered for architectural shots. Granted some or maybe all of the distortion can be eliminated via software. But for my nature shots I do not see it as a show-stopper by any means.
For me, the price point of the Sigma is key. For what it is, a really ultra-wide rectalinear lens, it seems an excellent value. Reviews are mixed. Some glowing...some not so much. But the images displayed are certainly far beyond "acceptable".
Another factor beyond the distortion is the speed. The Sigma is not very fast. For me not a prob as I live in sunny CA and will be shooting primarily outdoors.
So I think you have to figure what conditions and what kind of photography you want ot do and base your decision on that? (Just one opinion.)
