Canon 10-22 EF-S vs. Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5

StarrToDowler

Hello, all...

I'm wondering if anyone has experience with these two lenses. The Sigma, in addition to being considerably less expensive, also has a fixed 3.5 aperture. The Canon, on the other hand... well, it's a Canon!

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

Matthew Saville

Here's the quick and dirty response: The Canon is definitely sharper, but the Sigma is definitely f/3.5. (And the Tokina 11-16 is definitely f/2.8!!!)

Honestly, it just depends on what you shoot most.

* If you shoot lots of landscapes stopped down and milking every last bit of sharpness out of your tripod+cable release setup, then you probably care less about aperture and more about sharpness and focal range. Consider the Canon 10-22, the older Sigma 10-20 4.5-5.6, or also the older Tokina 12-24 f/4. All are very sharp if you get a good copy, and the zoom range is ample for an ultra-wide.

* If you shoot photojournalism and the most important things to you are aperture and APERTURE lol, then consider the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Get the Sigma if zoom range and lighter weight are more important to you than a little bit of aperture, but get the Tokina if sharpness and aperture are the absolute most important. For example, night time / star photographers LOVE the Tokina 11-16 2.8 on a 7D or D7000, it is truly a thing of beauty!

* Also, consider the Tamron 10-24 if price and weight and zoom range are more important to you than sharpness or build quality. :-P

Good luck choosing!

=Matt=

StarrToDowler

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Here's the quick and dirty response: The Canon is definitely sharper, but the Sigma is definitely f/3.5. (And the Tokina 11-16 is definitely f/2.8!!!)

Honestly, it just depends on what you shoot most.

* If you shoot lots of landscapes stopped down and milking every last bit of sharpness out of your tripod+cable release setup, then you probably care less about aperture and more about sharpness and focal range. Consider the Canon 10-22, the older Sigma 10-20 4.5-5.6, or also the older Tokina 12-24 f/4. All are very sharp if you get a good copy, and the zoom range is ample for an ultra-wide.

* If you shoot photojournalism and the most important things to you are aperture and APERTURE lol, then consider the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Get the Sigma if zoom range and lighter weight are more important to you than a little bit of aperture, but get the Tokina if sharpness and aperture are the absolute most important. For example, night time / star photographers LOVE the Tokina 11-16 2.8 on a 7D or D7000, it is truly a thing of beauty!

* Also, consider the Tamron 10-24 if price and weight and zoom range are more important to you than sharpness or build quality. :-P

Good luck choosing!

=Matt=

Many thanks for the advice, Matt. I sincerely appreciate it.

Most of what I'd use it for would be with a "photojournalistic" perspective, so it would be on the fly and the aperture would be mostly wide open. 2.8 sounds like it might be the way to go.

Thanks again!

Matthew Saville

StarrToDowler wrote: »

Many thanks for the advice, Matt. I sincerely appreciate it.

Most of what I'd use it for would be with a "photojournalistic" perspective, so it would be on the fly and the aperture would be mostly wide open. 2.8 sounds like it might be the way to go.

Thanks again!

A "hardcore" photojournalist, such as a war photographer or other National Geographic type, will usually concern themselves with ONLY two of three things: Sheer aperture if they shoot mostly in low light, or sharpness if they shoot in easier light. Then, lastly, rugged construction that can take the abuse of, well, things like war... :-(

The Tokina 11-16 has all three items. It's got the most aperture, most sharpness, and the most rugged build quality of any crop-sensor lens. (and many full-frame lenses too...)

If you can afford it, as a fellow photojournalist I definitely recommend the Tokina 11-16 2.8 DX. (And again, as I mentioned even though it's a DX lens it does a great job on full-frame when zoomed to 16mm, almost negating the need for a 16-35 for anyone who already has a 24-70...)

=Matt=

mr peas

I've used the Sigma version and the Canon version before I made my purchase. My Canon one is amazing. I would not use the Sigma counter-part if I had to carry it to certain gigs. I also use a cheaper Tamron 17-50mm for its 2.8, then the 70-200 2.8L is for longer shots. The f3.5 sounds very limiting, but its superbly sharp at that aperture, I've used it at SEMA here in Vegas, you can look up my photos in my gallery under my signature, most were shot wide-open @ f3.5 @ 1600iso. It works really well.



both: f4.5 1/50th 1600, no flash, and it's pretty dim considering convention lights.




I have yet to use the Tokina counter-parts so I cannot attest to their quality, but the Canon one has been in my arsenal for quite a while and it withstands a lot of use. If you need it for photojournalism, I say you pick it, I would however match it with a 17-55 or at least a 50mm 1.8 lens to catch the long-end when you need it. For UWA though, in my own opinion, its the only way to go on a Canon-crop-body.