Wide angle zoom lens

Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon EF-S
10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a fair jump in
price (Sigma £280, Canon £470, although I can get £70 cashback on that if I
go for the Canon). Any advice as to the pros and cons of each lens, and
whether there is a decent third choice that I hadn't considered? Many
thanks.

Woollyzone wrote:
Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon
EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a
fair jump in price (Sigma £280, Canon £470, although I can get £70
cashback on that if I go for the Canon). Any advice as to the pros
and cons of each lens, and whether there is a decent third choice
that I hadn't considered? Many thanks.

For you comparisons:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/B07A85DAFD4F720

Canon 10-22 on a 20D.

Of which there is no whicher, my view. It works good; if I didn't have
a full-frame Canon in my near future, I wouldn't (didn't) hesitate.

One mo
http://static.flickr.com/26/48789969_047e763303_o.jpg

Resp'y,

--
Frank ess

Woollyzone wrote:
Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon EF-S
10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a fair jump in
price (Sigma £280, Canon £470, although I can get £70 cashback on that if I
go for the Canon). Any advice as to the pros and cons of each lens, and
whether there is a decent third choice that I hadn't considered? Many
thanks.

Both are excellent lenses. As you say, the Canon is marginally faster
and also slightly lighter. The reason I chose the Canon was for its
better resistance to flare when shooting against the light (which I
often do). I saw a comparison, which showed the Canon to give much
clearer pictures, with better contrast, in those situations. Of course
the Sigma is by far the cheaper, so it's a matter of weighing factors
like these against price, which only you can do. Hope this helps.

"Mark" wrote in message
s.com...

Thanks all for your help, its been very useful.

In article , Rita Ÿ Berkowitz
@aol.com wrote:

Frank ess wrote:

For you comparisons:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/B07A85DAFD4F720

Canon 10-22 on a 20D.

Of which there is no whicher, my view. It works good; if I didn't have
a full-frame Canon in my near future, I wouldn't (didn't) hesitate.

One mo
http://static.flickr.com/26/48789969_047e763303_o.jpg

Frank, unless my monitor is failing I have to say they are very blurry and
soft. These images should be razor sharp with the 20D. I would like to see
a side-by-side with the Tokina 12-24.

The lens IS better than that. I get, as you put it, "razor sharp"
images on my 400D (XTi).

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Frank ess wrote:

For you comparisons:
http://www.fototime.com/inv/B07A85DAFD4F720

Canon 10-22 on a 20D.

Of which there is no whicher, my view. It works good; if I didn't have
a full-frame Canon in my near future, I wouldn't (didn't) hesitate.

One mo
http://static.flickr.com/26/48789969_047e763303_o.jpg

Frank, unless my monitor is failing I have to say they are very blurry and
soft. These images should be razor sharp with the 20D. I would like to
see
a side-by-side with the Tokina 12-24.




They looked a little, ahem, soft to me, too.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"Skip" wrote in message
...
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Frank ess wrote:

One mo
http://static.flickr.com/26/48789969_047e763303_o.jpg

Frank, unless my monitor is failing I have to say they are very
blurry and

They looked a little, ahem, soft to me, too.


Clearly the user is to blame for the image quality in some shots, not
the lense (sorry Frank).

In the first set, it looks like the aperture is too large to get good
depth of field in most shots. Look closely and you'll find plenty of
sharpness within the DOF. No EXIF data for most shots, so it's hard to
say for sure if that's the problem. Some shots are just poor due to
resampling or JPG processing.

In the second linked image, the Doberman(?) and leash are in motion,
so yeah it's going to appear soft.

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:37:24 +0000, Woollyzone wrote:

Hi, I am torn between buying the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, and the Canon EF-S
10-22 3.5-4.5 lenses. The Canon is a bit faster, but there's a fair jump in
price (Sigma £280, Canon £470, although I can get £70 cashback on that if I
go for the Canon). Any advice as to the pros and cons of each lens, and
whether there is a decent third choice that I hadn't considered? Many
thanks.
I tested both & decided on the Canon. The Sigma had better sharpness
(actually, quite a bit better!), but the Canon had the edge on "resistance
to flare". Se my shots with the 10-22 at www.pbase.com/roger_boulanger,
San Diego and USS Midway galleries. That was my first try with the new
lenses. I was horrified to the what my polarizer had done to my shots when
shooting at less than 11mm.
The Sigma is a very good lens for the money. However be careful to avoid
flare.

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

I was horrified to the
what my polarizer had done to my shots when shooting at less than
11mm. The Sigma is a very good lens for the money. However be careful
to avoid flare.

Using the Tokina 12-24 would have eliminated all of this.

Mostly because it doesn't do 10 and 11mm, right?

-Wolfgang

In article , Gisle Hannemyr
wrote:

Using the Tokina 12-24 would have eliminated all of this.

Mostly because it doesn't do 10 and 11mm, right?

It doesn't do 12 (or 24 mm) either. If you measure its FOV, you'll
find the Tokina is really a 13-23mm lens.

please cite proof of this claim.