Good Wide-Angle Lens for My Wishlist (for Canon Digital Rebel)

[astrostu]

I'm working on my ongoing wishlist and I want a good wide-angle lens (see my sig line for the lenses I have) for my Canon Digital Rebel XT. From what I've seen, I have two options:

~ Canon EF-S 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 ($690)
~ Sigma EX DC HSM 10-20 mm f/4-5.6 ($500)

Obviously, the Sigma looks like the more likely choice if anyone's going to get me one. My questions are two-fold - (1) is the Sigma lens worse than the Canon? and (2) is there a good wide-angle lens that I overlooked?

Thanks!

 

[jack lumber]

I have the sigma and I find it exellent. (first 3 shots here) http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59604

I have read reviews that say it is better than the Canon.

 

[nakedyak]

the sigma is cheaper, the canon is the best, but tamron and tokina also make wide angle options, so check those out too

 

[astrostu]

nakedyak - Looking at a comparison of the Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma lenses, the Sigma still looks more attractive. It has that "just extra" 1-2 mm shorter over the other two, it's 100 gm lighter than the Tokina, and it looks to be about $70 cheaper than the Tamron (probably 'cause the Tamron goes down to f/3.5.

 

[JIP]

~ Canon EF-S 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 ($690)
~ Sigma EX DC HSM 10-20 mm f/4-5.6 ($500)
Thanks!

This is all you need to know ti judge the quality of these lenses

 

[bitteraspects]

~ Canon EF-S 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 ($690)
~ Sigma EX DC HSM 10-20 mm f/4-5.6 ($500)

actually, thats all you need to know.
dont buy third party lenses. period.

 

[bitteraspects]

I have read reviews that say it is better than the Canon.

bHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

somehow i doubt that.

but also, keep in mind, a review is nothing more than one persons opinion. as this response is nothing more then one persons opinion. ultimately, the canon lense is made specificly to go with your canon body. and most pros will tell you the same thing, stick with canon. but your best bet is to go down to a store, try them both (when aplicable), then make the decision for yourself. or if money is a factor, decide based on that. (but even then, youre probably better off saving for the better lense)


-aspects

 

[Big Mike]

There are some Sigma/Tamron etc. lenses that are better than some Canon/Nikon lenses...and there are plenty of Canon/Nikon lenses that are better. The best thing to do...is to get opinions from many sources and make your own tests if you can. A good camera store will let you try a lens...or at least let you return it, if change your mind.

 

[astrostu]

One reason that I'm considering an off-brand is that in a few years I plan on buying a professional-level camera (vs. the "prosumer" one I have now) and this particular Canon lens only will work on the 20D and Rebels, so I'm trying to keep my options open in that respect.

 

[JIP]

That's why I pointed out the maximum apertures in my post If you are comparing a Canon 3.5-4.5 to a Sigma 4-5.6 or even a Canon 4-5.6 the 3.5-4.5 will win in quality every time you need to know what you are comparing and some less experienced people might not know that criteria (maximum aperture) for comparing lenses.

 

[thebeginning]

astro - i'd definitely check out the sigma. if money isn't an issue, you might as well get the canon as it's a very good lens and has good focusing and color. the sigma has many good high points too though...check out photozone.de's reviews of it and some of the reviews on www.fredmiranda.com/reviews.

This is all you need to know ti judge the quality of these lenses

not quite. most people will stop their ultra wides down to f8 or so anyway, so the max aperture isn't a big deal...especially since they are both close and not that great (the max ap).

bHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

somehow i doubt that.

but also, keep in mind, a review is nothing more than one persons opinion. as this response is nothing more then one persons opinion. ultimately, the canon lense is made specificly to go with your canon body. and most pros will tell you the same thing, stick with canon. but your best bet is to go down to a store, try them both (when aplicable), then make the decision for yourself. or if money is a factor, decide based on that. (but even then, youre probably better off saving for the better lense)


-aspects

reviews might be opinions in some cases, but the sites and organizations that do full lense tests are going by pure mtf data and perfomance quality, not 'opinions'. take photozone.de for example. very indepth reviews, very reliable, very well done. they say that on the wide in the sigma is indeed sharper than the canon. sharpness isn't everything, but the sigma is a good buy, as is the tokina 12-24. Also, 'most pros' don't always say stick with canon to everyone. they may use canon, but that doesnt mean they can't suggest another brand as well. I'm a 'pro' and can easily suggest several third party lenses, even to experienced shooters.

actually, thats all you need to know.
dont buy third party lenses. period.

actually, this is all you need to know:

stop trying to give advice.

 

[JIP]

not quite. most people will stop their ultra wides down to f8 or so anyway, so the max aperture isn't a big deal...especially since they are both close and not that great (the max ap).

So theretically what you are saying is the Canon 10-22 3.5-4.5 would be the same quality of lens as (I don't know if this is a real lens this is just for the sake of arguement) a 10-22 2.8 if you don't use the 2.8

wow! if that is true I wasted alot of money on my 2.8 lenses

 

[thebeginning]

So theretically what you are saying is the Canon 10-22 3.5-4.5 would be the same quality of lens as (I don't know if this is a real lens this is just for the sake of arguement) a 10-22 2.8 if you don't use the 2.8

wow! if that is true I wasted alot of money on my 2.8 lenses

in practice, the 'sweet spot' of a lense's IQ is typically 2 stops down from max aperture. so for a 3.5 lens it would be somewhere around f7.1. for an f4 lens it would be somewhere around f8. the margin is so close that there is really no point in arguing it. it's the difference between 1/50th and 1/60th of a second in shutterspeed - hardly a big change. note also that i said ultra wides, not all lenses. I'm not an idiot, I know the benefits of fast lenses. But to answer your question about whether or not the quality of a fast lens is better than a slower lens if they are both stopped down...it depends on the lens. It's just plain stupid to buy a 200mm 1.8 for $3000 more than a 200mm 2.8 if you always shoot at f5.6 (I actually think the 2.8 is better when stopped down anyway). the difference is big when comparing lenses like a 400mm 2.8 and a 400mm 5.6, but when comparing f3.5 and f4, especially on an ultra-wide, it's hardly a difference at all.

 

[Jeff Canes]

--actually, this is all you need to know:

stop trying to give advice.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Both Canon and Nikon outsource the manufacturing of their entry and mid grade lenses to third party lens manufacturers, Even Zeiss outsource to one of those same manufacturers and they only make high-end lenses