Quick help/answer: New Sigma 10-20mm v s/h Canon 10-22mm

cokebottles

cokebottles

cokebottles

Associate
Joined
12 Aug 2003
Posts
786
Location
North London
I've got £300 to one side for a lens for my 450d. I decided a while ago it would be an ultra wide. Budget has limited me to pretty much only considering the Sigma 10-20mm which aside from a few cases, is generally considered a rock solid choice of lens. I can have that for £300 off the highstreet anytime - I've known that for a while, and hence haven't had to rush into the purchase.

Just this morning, on another photo forum, a used Canon 10-22mm has come up for sale for £300. The lens is generally considered marginally better, more sharp at each end of the zoom range, a stop faster and better build quality.

It is second hand however, apparently in excellent condition. It is 18 months old, and have been told the warranty has expired.

At the new price of over £400 I am not even considering the Canon, and am quite happy not to do so, as I dont feel the extra performance/quality justifies the extra £150 - but what about this situation, what would you do? How reliable should I expect this lens to be for the next 2-5+ whatever years I could end up owning it? Im guessing any servicing or calibrating would cost a lot.

Has anyone used both? Not looking for a tesis - just advice on what you think I should do in these circumstances


Thanks guys.
 
I've got a 450d and £300 to spend on a wide angle as well. :)

I've been doing the rounds on the bay in the hope of finding a second hand canon 10-22mm just like the one you've found.

About the warranty, It would be nice of course to have the warranty but I'd rather have a canon lens instead of a sigma and the house insurance will cover it anyway.

Buy it!!!

(if you don't email me a link??)

;)
 
Don't forget the Tokina 12-24 f4, also £250 -£300 depending on where it comes from.
It is built like a tank, certainly as good as any L lens. Unless you are very very picky you will not notice the lack of the extra 2mm, I certainly never have, IQ is more than on a par with the best of the others.
 
Canon.

There obviously are some good Sigma's out there. There are also bad ones. I have not read one report of a bad Canon 10-22mm.

The Canon is slightly better than a good Sigma, it is considerably better than a bad one. For the same cost I would go for the Canon lens. Now, having bought a sigma a while back, I would save the extra money and get a canon even though it costs more.
 
Hmm... I'm too late. I made enquiries - but its now gone. Not the worst outcome, maybe a slightly wasted opportunity.

I will be happy with a new Sigma lens off the high-street - that way I can asses the sharpness and take it right back for a swap if im not happy. Thanks for all the feedback guys. I guess I would have kinda liked to have a Canon lens - maybe next time....
 
Entai said:
Don't forget the Tokina 12-24 f4, also £250 -£300 depending on where it comes from.
It is built like a tank, certainly as good as any L lens. Unless you are very very picky you will not notice the lack of the extra 2mm, I certainly never have, IQ is more than on a par with the best of the others.
Click to expand...

The extra 2mm on the wide end makes a huge difference though.

132.422 Arcseconds per Pixel
vs
110.352

1.2 times the fov
20% "wider"

And on Canon crop bodies the crop is worse than on Nikon (1.6 vs 1.5 factor).

Comparing a 12-24 on a Canon crop compared to a sigma 10-20 on a nikon would give you 19.2 mm against 15 mm

15 mm is a lot wider than 19.2. (and within Canon, 16 mm vs 19.2)
 
Can I just confuse you further by adding the Tokina 11-16mm into the mix.

Was looking at hiring a lens for when I go to Norway for the Northern Lights. Since the 11-16mm is a constant f/2.8, the speed would be great for capturing the lights (or so i read). Reading reviews it's said to be a great lens.

So yes, more lens confusion!
 
Okay, im going to go and confuse everyone even more.... [not myself though; Im set on gettin a Sigma 10-20mm now] - Tamron are going to release a 10-24mm. Kina combining the widest and longest ends of all the ultra-wide zoom offerings. I cant remember it's fastest aperture, but I know they showed a 'concept' at the begining of the year and I think it might be out on Nikon already. Usefull for those who demand 10mm - but also find a 20+mm stops them from changing lenses so soon.
 
For general interest, I'm considering selling my 10-22 (upgrade from a crop to a FF body). I'd guess it's around 18 months old as well. Check the MM in the this coming week. I've just got to dig around to find a suitable way of shipping it before I list it...

I've never used the Sigma. I know people who have got excellent results from Sigmas, and also those who have received mixed to terrible results. The thing about the canon is that aside from the better build quality and the fact that it's faster, you can pretty much guarantee that you'll get a good one. Lenses don't tend to wear over time, so if it were me I'd absolutely get the better lens second hand for the same money.
 
Well, I do not have any damaged right now:)
Just wanted to ask in case sth happens. I dont remember right now how much but my insurance covers things like cell phones, cameras, laptops - just dont know how you can claim. Can any damage be covered by this insurance? Like for example you drop it on the floor, or your kid flash it in a toilet? Or does it have to be like accident not caued by a person, like a wall collapsed on my desk and broke my pc... :)
 
growse said:
For general interest, I'm considering selling my 10-22 (upgrade from a crop to a FF body). I'd guess it's around 18 months old as well. Check the MM in the this coming week. I've just got to dig around to find a suitable way of shipping it before I list it...
Click to expand...

Please e-mail me if you're selling.
 
D.P. said:
The extra 2mm on the wide end makes a huge difference though.

132.422 Arcseconds per Pixel
vs
110.352

1.2 times the fov
20% "wider"

And on Canon crop bodies the crop is worse than on Nikon (1.6 vs 1.5 factor).

Comparing a 12-24 on a Canon crop compared to a sigma 10-20 on a nikon would give you 19.2 mm against 15 mm

15 mm is a lot wider than 19.2. (and within Canon, 16 mm vs 19.2)
Click to expand...


Having had the Sigma, and sold it for a Tokina, I must say I personally have never had the thought "wish I had the extra 2 mm".

In pure maths terms yes it may make a huge difference, in actual standing there taking the picture terms, it has never been an issue, that taking a step or so back, has not been able to solve.

I much prefer the IQ and the sharpness of the Tokina agiainst the Sigma, I would never go back even if someone gave me a perfect copy.
 
And the build quality, purely sublime, far better than the Sigma and Canon W/A's.

I got one a couple of weeks ago and am now in love :o:D
 
Entai said:
Having had the Sigma, and sold it for a Tokina, I must say I personally have never had the thought "wish I had the extra 2 mm".

In pure maths terms yes it may make a huge difference, in actual standing there taking the picture terms, it has never been an issue, that taking a step or so back, has not been able to solve.

I much prefer the IQ and the sharpness of the Tokina agiainst the Sigma, I would never go back even if someone gave me a perfect copy.
Click to expand...

Taking a step back doesn't work if you are inside trpped against a wall, or you are confined by nature... getting in a wider panoramic may mean flying in a helicopter rather than stepping back. Most of my Sigma shots are between 10-14mm. Over half are done at 10mm. OF that a large portion wouldn't be possible, or so good if taken at 12mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom