Wide angle PnS vs Canon 11-22 lens - which to buy?

[arsene]

I am currently using a Canon 20D. Although my current lenses serve my well for about 80% of the time, I do realise that with the 1.6x cropping, my widest lens (after cropping) is only 28mm. This may not be wide enough for some landscape shooting overseas.

The natural choice would of course be to buy a Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 or its equivalent. Whatever it is, the costs will be approximately $800 and upwards. Lately I have been toying with the idea of getting a 24 to 25mm PnS (which costs about $500) instead of a ultra wide lens.

The advantage of doing so means there is no lens switching, cheaper and also it provides an additional camera for me to use. The higher aperture does not bother me as I usually use f8 or more for landscape shots.

The downside will be that the re-sale value of the lenses will be better than that of a PnS body and also the lens is wider (17mm vs 24mm).

What do you guys think?

 

[mismis]

16mm and 24mm is a huge difference on the wide end. If you're on a tight budget I'd say go for the sigma 10-22mm

 

[colour]

16mm and 24mm is a huge difference on the wide end. If you're on a tight budget I'd say go for the sigma 10-22mm

How much does this sigme lens cost? Will it has fish eye effect when shooting at 10mm wide?

 

[stevenc]

IIRC, sigma 10-20 is about 200 bucks cheaper than canon 10-22. For the 200 bucks difference, I got the canon instead. It has been serving me well and is great for landscapes as well as small spaces.

 

[colour]

IIRC, sigma 10-20 is about 200 bucks cheaper than canon 10-22. For the 200 bucks difference, I got the canon instead. It has been serving me well and is great for landscapes as well as small spaces.

Can you let us know the difference of using these two lens of Canon and Sigma?.. Difference in term of sharpness, colour,?

 

[alternatve]

I am currently using a Canon 20D. Although my current lenses serve my well for about 80% of the time, I do realise that with the 1.6x cropping, my widest lens (after cropping) is only 28mm. This may not be wide enough for some landscape shooting overseas.

The natural choice would of course be to buy a Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 or its equivalent. Whatever it is, the costs will be approximately $800 and upwards. Lately I have been toying with the idea of getting a 24 to 25mm PnS (which costs about $500) instead of a ultra wide lens.

The advantage of doing so means there is no lens switching, cheaper and also it provides an additional camera for me to use. The higher aperture does not bother me as I usually use f8 or more for landscape shots.

The downside will be that the re-sale value of the lenses will be better than that of a PnS body and also the lens is wider (17mm vs 24mm).

What do you guys think?

You will be paying $500 to get a view 3mm wider if you buy a wide angle Pns as compared to paying $800 for a view 12mm wider (assuming Sigma 10-20 or equivalent). 3mm in real terms doesn't make a difference at all while 12mm does. Plus, PnS resale vales drop like a stone as compared to lenses.

Also, you got a DSLR for the higher image quality it delivers so why compromise that when taking landscape shots? What you gain in angle you lose in detail.

Samuel

 

[calebk]

I am currently using a Canon 20D. Although my current lenses serve my well for about 80% of the time, I do realise that with the 1.6x cropping, my widest lens (after cropping) is only 28mm. This may not be wide enough for some landscape shooting overseas.

The natural choice would of course be to buy a Canon 10-22 or the Sigma 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 or its equivalent. Whatever it is, the costs will be approximately $800 and upwards. Lately I have been toying with the idea of getting a 24 to 25mm PnS (which costs about $500) instead of a ultra wide lens.

The advantage of doing so means there is no lens switching, cheaper and also it provides an additional camera for me to use. The higher aperture does not bother me as I usually use f8 or more for landscape shots.

The downside will be that the re-sale value of the lenses will be better than that of a PnS body and also the lens is wider (17mm vs 24mm).

What do you guys think?

P&S does not give you full control over your settings. Even the widest a P&S goes, you are not going to get a P&S that can do 24mm at S$500. The only P&S that natively goes to 24mm IIRC is the Ricoh GX100, the price of which can get you a Sigma 10-20 (which is about S$890)

How much does this sigme lens cost? Will it has fish eye effect when shooting at 10mm wide?

S$890 or thereabouts. No intentional FE distortion, it is a rectilinear lens.

Can you let us know the difference of using these two lens of Canon and Sigma?.. Difference in term of sharpness, colour,?

Sharpness-wise, as long as you get a good copy (I did), the Sigma is really amazing.

These were shot wide open (f/4, 10mm). The detail rendered is impressive. Ergonomics are also really good; the lens has a really good build quality, with well-dampened focus and zoom rings. The lens features HSM-driven autofocus, and is silent and fast when focusing. Enough talk, here are the samples:

I've had no complaints about using the Sigma, except I wish it was a faster lens. The Canon is faster by a bit (f/3.5-4.5, compared to f/4-5.6 from the Sigma), and all of its zooming action goes on behind the filter threads (while the Sigma extends towards 20mm, but only a very little bit).

 

[lennyl]

I'm using a 10-22mm with my 20D. It's great fun. It's a lens I don't regret buying. Never even considered a wide angle P&S as substitute (because they don't even come close).

An alternative to an ultrawide for landscapes (since you already have a wide angle) is to shoot panos and stitch.

All ultrawides will introduce some distortion, but they can be managed, corrected (with limit) or used creatively.

 

[stevenc]

Can you let us know the difference of using these two lens of Canon and Sigma?.. Difference in term of sharpness, colour,?

Havent gotten to actually test the sigma. I choose the canon because: the price difference isnt alot for slightly better specs of aperture size, the canon's inner barrel doesnt extend beyond the filter line (trap less dust) and moreover its a canon and not a 3rd party lens.
Do a search on the forums and you will find similar threads.