sigma 10-20 & canon 50/1.8 -OR- sigma 20/1.8

[theregoesjb]

getting my first DSLR soon (either canon t2i or t3i), I have borrowed my fathers rebel 8mp XT a bit and used his kit 18-55 lens and his canon 50mm 1.8.

ive pretty much decided ill get just the t2i body and then get the canon 50mm 1.8 to start, which i really like for its speed and sharpness.

my plan was to then at some point get the sigma 10-20mm because i want a wide angle lens for outdoor photography

I am wondering if it would be worth killing two birds with one stone though and get the sigma 20mm 1.8 lens. its not quite as wide as 10mm but 20mm is still pretty good

any thoughts on this?

 

[analog.universe]

The Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 is quite a nice lens and would be my recommendation. From what I understand the 20mm 1.8 is very soft, and vignettes so heavily that shooting at 1.8 doesn't even collect as much light as you'd expect from that aperture. I'd suggest reading a bunch of tests for each lens so you can see how they actually perform. All the reviews I've read recommend against that 20mm unfortunately :-/. If you want to shoot wide landscapes, you'll also be much happier at 10 than 20.

 

[DiskoJoe]

getting my first DSLR soon (either canon t2i or t3i), I have borrowed my fathers rebel 8mp XT a bit and used his kit 18-55 lens and his canon 50mm 1.8.

ive pretty much decided ill get just the t2i body and then get the canon 50mm 1.8 to start, which i really like for its speed and sharpness.

my plan was to then at some point get the sigma 10-20mm because i want a wide angle lens for outdoor photography

I am wondering if it would be worth killing two birds with one stone though and get the sigma 20mm 1.8 lens. its not quite as wide as 10mm but 20mm is still pretty good

any thoughts on this?

get the 10-20 its handy. Your dad will probably let you borrow the 50.

 

[DiskoJoe]

The Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 is quite a nice lens and would be my recommendation. From what I understand the 20mm 1.8 is very soft, and vignettes so heavily that shooting at 1.8 doesn't even collect as much light as you'd expect from that aperture. I'd suggest reading a bunch of tests for each lens so you can see how they actually perform. All the reviews I've read recommend against that 20mm unfortunately :-/. If you want to shoot wide landscapes, you'll also be much happier at 10 than 20.

I highly recommend the 3.5. It costs more but is worth the money. Incredibly sharp for a wide angle.

 

[theregoesjb]

I highly recommend the 3.5. It costs more but is worth the money. Incredibly sharp for a wide angle.

thanks for the responses, I meant the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, i actually didnt even realize that there was a 3.5 until this post. Hope that doesn't change too much..

feel free to add thoughts about the difference between the two if you have used both

 

[analog.universe]

The 4-5.6 is ok for the money I suppose, but the 3.5 really is quite superior... I haven't used both, but I researched all the crop UWA's extensively. I ended up deciding on the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, because of it's sharpness and distortion characteristics. The Tokina 12-24 f/4 is also pretty nice in your situation, gives you a bit more range until you get to 50. Unfortunately these are all more costly than 10-20 f/4-5.6. I personally would wait and save up for one of the nicer options if need be.