Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM
- Thread starter iGary
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd recommend Tokina's 12-24 or (if you want to spend a little bit more) the brand-new 11-16 lens. According to photozone, it's the sharpest ultra-wide angle lens for Canons to date.
The built-quality is definitely better and very close to L quality lenses. Most of the reviews also rave about the optical quality.
Thanks for that review link.
I'm a little hesitant about Tokina only because I have never owned any of their lenses, but I will check it out - thanks!
I've owned Tokina lenses before and they surpass all except for the more expensive Sigma lenses in terms of built quality which is very close to pro glass. Except lots of metal, a usable focus ring that operates buttery-smoothly.
Tokina does not use ultrasonic motors (yet), but they do put their budget in glass (Tokina is owned by the largest lens glass manufacturer in the world, Hoya) and `metal.'
I'm still trying to get rid of my 18-70 Nikkor in favor of something else … and the 12-24 sure looks tempting 🙂
compuwar
macrumors 601
For landscapes, it's a good lens, for architecture, you'll want Bibble Pro or DXO to take out the small distortion issues any ultra-wide has. Build quality is very good. You can't put filters on the front of this lens, so if that's an issue try something not quite so wide instead- but the difference between 10mm and 12mm is a lot and may be significant depending on what you shoot.
I think I am going to give it a try. If it sucks I'll just return it and go with the Canon. I'm just not convinced that the extra $200+ is worth it ... yet.
I had a 12-24 Sigma once and really liked it. Hopefully I get a good copy.
Thanks!
I dont think you'll regret it, i certainly didnt! Bought mine back in March this year and lightroom tells me i've taken 1015 pictures with it so far and overall i've been really pleased with it. (mostly landscape with some archtecture and city shots and the odd bit of environmental portraiture)
Had read quite a few stories of sigma QC which had worried me, but mine was fine first copy.
This was my first sigma lens (others all canon with one cheapie tamron bargain i couldnt resist!) and i certainly wouldnt mind buying sigma (especially EX series) again 🙂
Had read quite a few stories of sigma QC which had worried me, but mine was fine first copy.
This was my first sigma lens (others all canon with one cheapie tamron bargain i couldnt resist!) and i certainly wouldnt mind buying sigma (especially EX series) again 🙂
Westside guy
macrumors 604
Be sure you check the distortion while you're in the time period you can send it back. The one reason I picked the Tokina 12-24 over the Sigma (when I was shooting DX) was because the Sigma's distortion, while small, is rather odd and non-uniform. As Compuwar noted, there are software solutions for this - but be sure they do an acceptable job.
I guess my only worry is sharpness. I've heard no complaints on the Canon end of things (their EF-S 10-22), but have heard some minor issues with Sigma's 10-20.
I'm likely going to give it a try and if there are issues, I'm going to have to spend the extra on Canon. Luckily, on the real estate end of things, sharpness is not as much of an issue as it is with landscape images, as teh real estate images are almost always for Web, not print.
Anywhoo, thanks guys.
LaJaca
macrumors regular
You'll love your lens - I've had mine for almost 2 years and can't believe what I can get done with it. As has already been said, you're approaching significiant distortion at the wide end. This is not an architectural lens. For the other 95% of general photography, it's more than adequate. It's sharp, fast, silent, well built, and has added an extra dimension to my nascent composition skills. I don't expext I'll ever give it up, at least before I migrate to full frame cameras one day.
To be fair, I have nothing bad to say about the Tokina - I've read and heard from many folks (including here) who absolutely love theirs - built like a tank, sharp, constant aperture. I think you'll do fine either way. The ONLY reason I went for the Sigma was to get the extra 2mm on the wide end - and it does make a difference.
Good luck with your purchase, let us know how it all turns out.
To be fair, I have nothing bad to say about the Tokina - I've read and heard from many folks (including here) who absolutely love theirs - built like a tank, sharp, constant aperture. I think you'll do fine either way. The ONLY reason I went for the Sigma was to get the extra 2mm on the wide end - and it does make a difference.
Good luck with your purchase, let us know how it all turns out.
tokina
I'll add more support for the Tokina 12-24, I just got one this week and I think it is even sharper than my Canon 28-135, plus it is built like a tank, it feels more solid than both the Canon and the Sigma. All the image tests I have seen show the Tokina peforming about equally with the Canon 10-22, and much better than the Sigma & Tamron ultra-wides.
Just my two cents🙂
I'll add more support for the Tokina 12-24, I just got one this week and I think it is even sharper than my Canon 28-135, plus it is built like a tank, it feels more solid than both the Canon and the Sigma. All the image tests I have seen show the Tokina peforming about equally with the Canon 10-22, and much better than the Sigma & Tamron ultra-wides.
Just my two cents🙂
seenew
macrumors 68000
iGary, I've used both more than once. I owned the Canon 10-22 for six months before switching to the 17-40 (because I started shooting film), and it was great. Very, very sharp. Minimal distortion and no vignetting that I can recall.
In the time that I had the 17-40 and was still shooting with a cropped sensor (before I got my 5D) I borrowed a friend's Sigma 10-20 for a couple of shoots that I need superwide. Having used the Canon in the past, I immediately noticed drawbacks and felt more justified in my spending the extra dough. First off, it was slower to focus, and had a real hard time in low light. The build quality did not feel anywhere near as solid as the Canon. Then back at my computer, the IQ shortcomings were evident. Overall not as sharp as the Canon, and drastically softer in the corners and edges. There was also noticeable vignetting.
So there you have it. To me, there is a clear advantage to buying the Canon 10-22. And I am no biased fanboy, I own the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and love it. In this case, however, I side with Canon.
In the time that I had the 17-40 and was still shooting with a cropped sensor (before I got my 5D) I borrowed a friend's Sigma 10-20 for a couple of shoots that I need superwide. Having used the Canon in the past, I immediately noticed drawbacks and felt more justified in my spending the extra dough. First off, it was slower to focus, and had a real hard time in low light. The build quality did not feel anywhere near as solid as the Canon. Then back at my computer, the IQ shortcomings were evident. Overall not as sharp as the Canon, and drastically softer in the corners and edges. There was also noticeable vignetting.
So there you have it. To me, there is a clear advantage to buying the Canon 10-22. And I am no biased fanboy, I own the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and love it. In this case, however, I side with Canon.
sycho
macrumors 6502a
I bought the Sigma not long ago, I love the images produced, colours are excellent and I love that I can take 1/10 of a second shots with shake/blur. I tried the Tokina 12-24 for a few shots, I like that is was a constant F4, but I hated the amount of chromatic aberration. If you get a chance, try them all out, pick which you like best and can afford. I am happy with the purchase, it is a solid lens in my opinion. I'll post some pictures later that I took.
CATinHAWAII
macrumors member
i got my canon 10-22 a few months ago... love it...
i dont think that you'll be disappointed either,,, just a bit heavy, but worth it? YES!😀
I own the Sigma 10-20mm for my nikon D70s.
Love the lens. I have been quite pleased with the results.
Here's one shot with it I'll share that I tweaked the colors:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/150hp/2745746572/
& here's one with natural color:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/150hp/2601565955/
Love the lens. I have been quite pleased with the results.
Here's one shot with it I'll share that I tweaked the colors:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/150hp/2745746572/
& here's one with natural color:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/150hp/2601565955/
I went with the Sigma 10-20 and it's not a bad lens.
The usual vignetting and a little distortion, but for the price, I'm pleased with the results.
It'll do the trick. The attached is unedited to show what you get straight out of the camera with the lens.
The usual vignetting and a little distortion, but for the price, I'm pleased with the results.
It'll do the trick. The attached is unedited to show what you get straight out of the camera with the lens.
