Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens vs Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM

Can anyone advise me between these lens -Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens vs Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM???


I had tried my hands on theSigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM. It was absolute gorgeous. The fixapertureis a great feature too. However, I notice because it is not a Canon, I cannot use certain feature of the DPP to correct the photos taken with this lens (such as CA correction & lensdistortion). This is a minor setback but I might be wrong.





Please advice.

I can't speak for quality differences between the lenses. There are plenty of online comparisons, and you might include the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 in your thoughts as well. In fact, I'm debating the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 vs. the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 vs. the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for my next purchase.


It's certainly true that the DPP corrections for lens aberrations (CA, peripheral illumination aka vignetting, etc.) are available only for lenses in the DPP database (which includes only Canon lenses, but not all of those - for example the newer lenses, like the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, aren't in there yet). However, similar lens corrections are available in other software packages (Photoshop, DxO, etc.), with the obvious disadvantage that they aren't free.

Well, the thing is there aren't any good comparisons on the net with the Sigma. All I have was the press release by Sigma or a no-brainer two paragraphs stating the obvious. Even I can write better reviews. I think we are too spoiled by Bryan! Bryan, if you are reading this, your reviews are the best reviews OF ANY KIND OF PRODUCTS, OF ANY KIND OF MEDIA I've ever read. The thing is, I don't understand how he did it over and over again for so many products and so accurately done. Ok, enough of Bryan worshiping. (Bryan, get back to work and write me a Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM). If someone would let me know how well the Tokina size up with these two, that will be a blast too.


In my market (Malaysia) the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is aboutUSD 825 and the Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 is USD 841. Slight and insignificant different. Few other factors I have to consider is that Canon does not come with the lens hood (which I have to fork out and buy). But the Sigma isn't that all free and done deal either, the filter size is a whooping 82mm!!! It will cost me a bomb to get a good UV and Polarizer.


FYI, the Tokina cost USD 723.

I've owned two copies of the Tokina and one copy of the Canon. I've never tried the Sigma. The Canon is a solid performing lens, and I'm quite fond of it. My latest with it:



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4069/...303d40d081.jpg

What about the Tamron 10-24? I took a few pics with this lens from my friends...it is performing really good :D And it is a lot cheaper!


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.34.48/27_2D00_Triathlon-Rijssen-140.jpg[/img]


10mm iso 400 f7.1 1/320 canon 50D straight out of the camera, no postprocessing whatsoever.


Dpreview did a review on it... might be worth it...


The lens is a lot cheaper and in my view...the canon 10-22 is almost as expensive as my 17-55 is usm, but I'm sure the 17-55 will pay back sooner then the 10-22 will. Depending on the amount of shots you make with it.


http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_10-24_3p5-5p6_n15/

I'll second the Tamron recommendation, great lens for the price.


Lake McDonald, Glacier Natl Park, MT @10mm 1/30s f/8 ISO 100


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/Sz...x0/s720/bc.JPG

I was thinking of upgrading to the new 3.5 version but I've read in a couple of flikr forums that it's not worth the upgrade.


Here I've used the Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 EX DC HSM version, both taken in the Seychelles.


@ 10mm ISO 200, 1/320 @ f/13 -1EV, cropped.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.98/Seychelles.jpg[/img]





@ 10mm ISO 200, 1/250 @ f/13 0EV, cropped.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.98/Seychelles_2D00_2.jpg[/img]


[:D]

I've only had the pleasure of using the Canon, and have really enjoyed it for "urban" photography. It is remarkable and provides excellent image quality in a solid package. I've borrowed it a few times from my bro-in-law, and is a great compliment to my 24-105 and 70-200, and feels "almost" L quality. Here are few of my favorites.


Rich


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.10/IMG_5F00_0497_5F00_sm.JPG[/img]





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.10/IMG_5F00_8238_5F00_sm.JPG[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.10/NYCTrinityCemetery_5F00_sm.JPG[/img]

Not a Bryan-quality review, but here is a review with some comparison shots of five UWA lenses, the Canon 10-22, both Sigma 10-20s, the Tokina 11-16 and the Tamron 10-24.

Neuroanatomist, thanks a heaps for showing me that comparison review, I've been pondering eternally about which one is best! Cheers!