SIGMA 10-20mm f/3.5 and Canon 70-200mm IS f/4 vs NON-IS f/2.8

[Compaq]

Hey gents. I looking at some ultra wide lenses, and this SIGMA is great on paper. I've read some positive and some a little more negative reviews about this lens (disappointing performance in corners at 10mm). So I turn to you guys. There are a few things I'd like to have discussed, and I can't really find very much about this lens on here.

Firstly, let's compare it to the non-constant aperture sibling, the f/4-5.6. At 10mm the 3.5 isn't very much faster, just about 1/3 stop. At 20mm the difference is a bit bigger, but still, is it really necessary for the average landscape amateur photographer? I suppose most slightly serious people would have a tripod at the ready? At least I would.

This lens is almost as expensive as Canon's 10-20 f/4-5.6. I read a comparison between all the popular UWA lenses somewhere (can't remember the site), and the conclusion seemed to be in most tests that Canon came out on top, both in IQ as well as different performance tests RE: CA, distortion, CA, flaring etc etc. The only thing you really pay for in the SIGMA is the slightly faster constant aperture. If anyone has tried both lenses, I'd appreciate a little feedback.

I'm just doing some research, I'm close to having the monitos for this purchase yet (poor student ).


And I also have a few questions about the IS f/4L and non-IS f/2.8L in the 70-200 family. The IS supposedly compensates with 3-4 stops.. That's insane, but great => one get pretty slow shutter speeds at 200mm, and opens for hand held possibilities in relatively low-light situations. However, one could get trouble with freezing action on an overcast afternoon - which is a possibility I'd like to have. But then again, I'd really like the IS to really give me hand held possibilities with it. These two lenses cost about the same (at least in Norway), and the f/2.8L IS is just way, way too expensive.. out of the question. Does anyone have any other things worth mentioning RE: practical uses about the f/4 IS vs the non-IS f/2.8? It looks like I just need to prioritise.. luckily I can't afford this yet, plenty of time to think and read

Cheers

 

[Stryker]

I find this site very helpful when deciding what glass I have to buy: Canon EOS (APS-C) Lens Tests / Reviews

 

[Compaq]

I've read reviews about the lenses, but they the conclusions are always very similar. What I want to know is what you guys have experienced with it, especially the 70-200mm lenses.

Pros and cons of going for the slower f/4 with IS, or the faster f/2.8 without IS. I'll have to take my fantastic plastic out and see just how little light is needed for a shutter speed at 1/250 at f/2.8 and upwards, and get a feel of it that way. And I'd love some feedback from people have used it, I would appreciate that! After all, these are expensive lenses and would be an investment for many years to come.

 

[Geaux]

Have no idea why my post didn't show, it was sort of longwinded too lol.

I don't have any experience with Canon or the Canon Wide Angle, but I do own the non-constant Sigma 10-20 for Nikon. Love the lense and it's wideness, but I'm also a distortion whore lol. Softness at corners is to be expected when going as wide as 10 or 11 and that goes across the board with any brand. I was also worrying about getting the Sigma with all the bad reviews, but I scored a really good copy from abesofmaine.com for 430 bucks so I couldn't pass it up. Worse comes to worse, you can send it back for a replacement if it has issues or get warranty work done on it. I'd hate to do that, but its not like you'll be stuck with a crap lense if you get one that's a bit soft.

Example shots:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5086/5729273158_60deab5d91_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5258/5423863172_1b2241a8e8_z.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5382563265_56e538d607_z.jpg