going wide angle on a Canon 1.6 crop DSLR
Discussion
What with having the nipper to look after on holiday and less free time generally, I'm finally giving up on the idea of continuing to use my film cameras and 24mm or 28mm primes on Velvia (and scanning the slides) for landscapes and travel stuff. I'm going to use the 20D for everything and at least I'll take more shots that way.
However, my 20mm prime is not wide enough for the 20D with it's crop factor, so I've cast around and I reckon the realistic, affordable choices are as follows. It's a shame there are not non-fisheye primes around the 15-17mm mark as I prefer primes.
Canon EF-S 17-55 IS
Canon EF 17-40 L
Canon EF-S 10-22
Any comments from users of these lenses, especially anyone that's compared them? I'm likely to use them around the 15-17mm mark (i.e. wide open for two of them) and I don't like too much faffing about in Photoshop so soft or severely distorted images are not ideal. I'm a bit nervous about the EF-S mount as I'd like to go full-frame in the future, but financially that may be some time away.
Having said that, I suppose the other option would be to flog the 20D on Ebay and get a 5D, which would not cost much than the lenses above given the 20D's trade-in value, and would work admirably with my 20mm and 24mm canon primes, and lenses like the 28-135 IS I already have. Hmmmm..... When is the 5D due for replacement???
Any guidance from those "in the know" appreciated!
However, my 20mm prime is not wide enough for the 20D with it's crop factor, so I've cast around and I reckon the realistic, affordable choices are as follows. It's a shame there are not non-fisheye primes around the 15-17mm mark as I prefer primes.
Canon EF-S 17-55 IS
Canon EF 17-40 L
Canon EF-S 10-22
Any comments from users of these lenses, especially anyone that's compared them? I'm likely to use them around the 15-17mm mark (i.e. wide open for two of them) and I don't like too much faffing about in Photoshop so soft or severely distorted images are not ideal. I'm a bit nervous about the EF-S mount as I'd like to go full-frame in the future, but financially that may be some time away.
Having said that, I suppose the other option would be to flog the 20D on Ebay and get a 5D, which would not cost much than the lenses above given the 20D's trade-in value, and would work admirably with my 20mm and 24mm canon primes, and lenses like the 28-135 IS I already have. Hmmmm..... When is the 5D due for replacement???
Any guidance from those "in the know" appreciated!
The reviews seem to suggest the Canon 10-22 is a lot sharper than the Sigma, lower-end L class glass in a lighter body seems to be the general conclusion. Add to that the higher resale value of genuine Canon lenses - which always seem to fetch top dollar on Ebay, and the gelatin filter hassles of the Sigma, and it's out I'm afriad.
I think the 10-22 or upgrading to the 5D body seem the most likely...
Edited to add - except for the fact the 5D cost in pounds what I thought it cost in dollars! Scrub that!
The amended most likely plan, then, is to flog the 20mm prime and get the 10-22 canon, but I'm still very interested in view on this lens and the others mentioned...
I think the 10-22 or upgrading to the 5D body seem the most likely...
Edited to add - except for the fact the 5D cost in pounds what I thought it cost in dollars! Scrub that!
The amended most likely plan, then, is to flog the 20mm prime and get the 10-22 canon, but I'm still very interested in view on this lens and the others mentioned...
Edited by jwyatt on Wednesday 4th July 17:28
I bought the EF 10-22 and use it on my 300d. I'm planning a 30d/40d upgrade later this year.
I find the lens really good, very sharp and adds a nice touch to my photography. I was thinking of the sigma, but I thought it soft and slower to focus.
If you put a filter on it, such as a circular polariser, you will get it encroaching into the edges at 10mm.
examples:
and probably lots here - http://www.pbase.com/byker28i/supercarsunday
I find the lens really good, very sharp and adds a nice touch to my photography. I was thinking of the sigma, but I thought it soft and slower to focus.
If you put a filter on it, such as a circular polariser, you will get it encroaching into the edges at 10mm.
examples:
and probably lots here - http://www.pbase.com/byker28i/supercarsunday
Photography Monthly April 2007
Canon EF-S 10-22mm quote- A slight drop in quality at the 22mm end of the focal range does not detract too much from what is a capable if expensive lens
Handling 22
Features 23
Performance 22
VFM 20
Total 87/100
Sigma 10-20mm quote - This lens is sharp with excellent contrast, Good Distortion Control and resolution, great contrast and a reasonable price give a lot of lens for the money.
Handling 22
Features 23
Performance 23
VFM 23
Total 91/100
The Sigma also costs considerably less than the Canon especially when you take the case and hood (supplied with the Sigma) into consideration. Maybe all copies are not as sharp but that can apply to Canon lenses as well.
Photography Monthly also reviewed the Nikon AF-S DX12-24 (87/100), Sigma 12-24 (88/100), Tamron 11-18 (79/100), Tokina 10-17 Fisheye (80/100), Olympus 7-14 (84/100), Olympus 11-22 (79/100), Pentax 10-17 Fisheye (79/100) and Tokina 12-24 (79/100) in the same issue.
At the end of the day it's your choice but don't dismiss the Sigma without giving it a go.I was in the same situation as you and went for the Sigma enabling me to buy some quality filters with the saving over the Canon. I have no issues with a slimline polariser or a Lee setup encroaching at 10mm.
davidy
Canon EF-S 10-22mm quote- A slight drop in quality at the 22mm end of the focal range does not detract too much from what is a capable if expensive lens
Handling 22
Features 23
Performance 22
VFM 20
Total 87/100
Sigma 10-20mm quote - This lens is sharp with excellent contrast, Good Distortion Control and resolution, great contrast and a reasonable price give a lot of lens for the money.
Handling 22
Features 23
Performance 23
VFM 23
Total 91/100
The Sigma also costs considerably less than the Canon especially when you take the case and hood (supplied with the Sigma) into consideration. Maybe all copies are not as sharp but that can apply to Canon lenses as well.
Photography Monthly also reviewed the Nikon AF-S DX12-24 (87/100), Sigma 12-24 (88/100), Tamron 11-18 (79/100), Tokina 10-17 Fisheye (80/100), Olympus 7-14 (84/100), Olympus 11-22 (79/100), Pentax 10-17 Fisheye (79/100) and Tokina 12-24 (79/100) in the same issue.
At the end of the day it's your choice but don't dismiss the Sigma without giving it a go.I was in the same situation as you and went for the Sigma enabling me to buy some quality filters with the saving over the Canon. I have no issues with a slimline polariser or a Lee setup encroaching at 10mm.
davidy
Edited by DavidY on Wednesday 4th July 18:03
Apologies David if I seemed to dispute your claims. I should clarify.
Wide angle lenses are by their very nature a bit soft at the edges - and as they go, the Sigma 10-20 is up there - Always gets good reviews, which is why I bought one. I use it from time to time and I have no Canon lenses to compare it with. Compared to class glass (which admittedly cost about four times as much), it's soft... but hey, for £200-£250, it's a bargain.... Go get one.
Wide angle lenses are by their very nature a bit soft at the edges - and as they go, the Sigma 10-20 is up there - Always gets good reviews, which is why I bought one. I use it from time to time and I have no Canon lenses to compare it with. Compared to class glass (which admittedly cost about four times as much), it's soft... but hey, for £200-£250, it's a bargain.... Go get one.
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 4th July 18:40
Steve
No Offence Taken!!!!!!
I agree that 'consumer' wide-angle lenses go soft at the edges, I also agree that 'professional' lenses cost a considerable amount more, I work in machine vision where high resolution quality lenses can cost a small fortune, over a boggo standard CCTV type lens - it's horses for courses. I personally felt that the Canon 10-22 offered very little (if anything over the Sigma 10-20) despite it's increased price (plus the hood and the case). Talking to the dealer I bought mine from the Sigma 10-20 is a very popular lens and the lens they sold the most of.
Ultimately the Canon may drop less in value (in percentage terms) as it always has the right badge on it! but then the Sigma doesn't cost a great deal to balance the equation.
I very nearly bought the Canon but having played with both opted for the Sigma
davidy
PS great pictures on your website BTW, very inspirational.
No Offence Taken!!!!!!
I agree that 'consumer' wide-angle lenses go soft at the edges, I also agree that 'professional' lenses cost a considerable amount more, I work in machine vision where high resolution quality lenses can cost a small fortune, over a boggo standard CCTV type lens - it's horses for courses. I personally felt that the Canon 10-22 offered very little (if anything over the Sigma 10-20) despite it's increased price (plus the hood and the case). Talking to the dealer I bought mine from the Sigma 10-20 is a very popular lens and the lens they sold the most of.
Ultimately the Canon may drop less in value (in percentage terms) as it always has the right badge on it! but then the Sigma doesn't cost a great deal to balance the equation.
I very nearly bought the Canon but having played with both opted for the Sigma
davidy
PS great pictures on your website BTW, very inspirational.
Thanks for the replies! I think, having never had an interest in ultra-wides before, I've confused the (generally worse) reviews of the Sigma 12-24 with the 10-20.
I usually use the Hoya "Moose" 81A and CPL combibned filter for landscapes (I wish there was an affordable 81B/CPL) it sounds like there might be some hassles wide open, but I think the middle of these lense's range would be the most commonly used areas. Generally I prefer the appearance of about 24mm on a full frame sensor or film SLR. I can't explain why, it justlookis "right" and doesn't distort. Whether the crop SLR equivalent of 24mm will distort much remains to be seen...
Will consider the Sigma then! It it has a filter size I already own, then that would help it...
Edited to add - damn it's 77mm as well. 72mm would have been better.
TBH I don't want/need the case or the hood either.
I suppose a big thing potentially going for the Sigma is if it is an EF, no EF-S mount, as it will then be useable on my film SLR and whenever I buy a full frame DSLR...
I usually use the Hoya "Moose" 81A and CPL combibned filter for landscapes (I wish there was an affordable 81B/CPL) it sounds like there might be some hassles wide open, but I think the middle of these lense's range would be the most commonly used areas. Generally I prefer the appearance of about 24mm on a full frame sensor or film SLR. I can't explain why, it justlookis "right" and doesn't distort. Whether the crop SLR equivalent of 24mm will distort much remains to be seen...
Will consider the Sigma then! It it has a filter size I already own, then that would help it...
Edited to add - damn it's 77mm as well. 72mm would have been better.
TBH I don't want/need the case or the hood either.
I suppose a big thing potentially going for the Sigma is if it is an EF, no EF-S mount, as it will then be useable on my film SLR and whenever I buy a full frame DSLR...
Edited by jwyatt on Thursday 5th July 11:44
Seems the Sigma 10-20 is a good lens but 1.6 crop sensor only, so competes with the Canon EF-S 10-22, which is about £100 more (£250 vs £345 inc shipping).
The Sigma 12-24 can be used on full frame/film or 1.6 crop, but doesn't seem as well regarded and takes rear mount gelatin filters.
Hence I reckon I'll get the Sigma 10-20 and use the lower cost to justify also keeping my Canon 20mm prime and not Ebaying it!
As to filters, as I said I like to use an 81B and CPL most of the time for landscapes when I have the choice, more usually a combined 81A/CPL these days (the Hoya Moose one). For wide angle, which I use for landscapes, I would use this all the time so would not necessarily bother with a second "protection" filter like an 81A or UV0 unless I had more than one lens with this size...
Using film I tended to use 81B/CPL combines except when using Velvia, which did everything itself - it only needed a grey grad, or nothing. Since going digital I've found the 81A/CPL still leaves images a lot less saturated than Velvia...
The Sigma 12-24 can be used on full frame/film or 1.6 crop, but doesn't seem as well regarded and takes rear mount gelatin filters.
Hence I reckon I'll get the Sigma 10-20 and use the lower cost to justify also keeping my Canon 20mm prime and not Ebaying it!
As to filters, as I said I like to use an 81B and CPL most of the time for landscapes when I have the choice, more usually a combined 81A/CPL these days (the Hoya Moose one). For wide angle, which I use for landscapes, I would use this all the time so would not necessarily bother with a second "protection" filter like an 81A or UV0 unless I had more than one lens with this size...
Using film I tended to use 81B/CPL combines except when using Velvia, which did everything itself - it only needed a grey grad, or nothing. Since going digital I've found the 81A/CPL still leaves images a lot less saturated than Velvia...
I've got both the 10-22mm Canon and the 17-40L and I can't fault either of them on my 20D.
The 17mm is not really that wide when on the crop cameras but it does work as a kind of wide walkabout lense. Works pretty well for landscape although that is not really my forte at all.
The 10-22 is a cracker though and really very very good. It definitely does not seem any worse than the L lens in the quality of the images.
Be aware though that although the Sigma 10-20 is not an EF-S lens it still won't work properly on a full frame camera as it is designed for the smaller sensors. It will vignette a fair bit on a FF body.
The 17mm is not really that wide when on the crop cameras but it does work as a kind of wide walkabout lense. Works pretty well for landscape although that is not really my forte at all.
The 10-22 is a cracker though and really very very good. It definitely does not seem any worse than the L lens in the quality of the images.
Be aware though that although the Sigma 10-20 is not an EF-S lens it still won't work properly on a full frame camera as it is designed for the smaller sensors. It will vignette a fair bit on a FF body.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff