Cem_Usakligil
Well-known member
Hi folks,
Following up on the discussion in this thread, I am now considering buying either the Sigma 12-24 or the EF 10-22. Most of you have recommended the Sigma lens since it is a FF lens that can be used on a 5D and above. OTOH, I have read some excellent reviews of the EF 10-22 lens.
The Canon lens is lighter and has a filter size of 77mm just like my 24-105 L IS USM. In which case, I can share the circular polarisation filter on both lenses. Also, there is a Canon cash-back action which makes it about 100 Euro's cheaper than the Sigma.
Sigma is huge and heavier but it feels very solidly built. It has a bigger filter size, so I have to invest a couple of hundred bucks more in a new circular polarisation filter. All together, it will cost me some 250-300 Euro's more.
Obviously, I'd like to hear your opinions about the quality of these lenses. Apart from that and assuming that they are on par with each other as far as image quality is concerned, which is the better option? Buy the cheaper yet excellent Canon lens and reinvest in a FF one when and if I ever buy a FF body some two-three years later, or go for Sigma from the beginnning?
Thanks for your opinions.![Smile :) :)]()
Regards,
Cem
PS: Asher has advised me to wait some three months before I invested in a wide lens, but I already feel that I'll be lacking it on my 400D. The 24-105 I now have gives an equivalent of 38mm on the short end. So Asher; I hope you don't mind me doing some homework already ;-)
Following up on the discussion in this thread, I am now considering buying either the Sigma 12-24 or the EF 10-22. Most of you have recommended the Sigma lens since it is a FF lens that can be used on a 5D and above. OTOH, I have read some excellent reviews of the EF 10-22 lens.
The Canon lens is lighter and has a filter size of 77mm just like my 24-105 L IS USM. In which case, I can share the circular polarisation filter on both lenses. Also, there is a Canon cash-back action which makes it about 100 Euro's cheaper than the Sigma.
Sigma is huge and heavier but it feels very solidly built. It has a bigger filter size, so I have to invest a couple of hundred bucks more in a new circular polarisation filter. All together, it will cost me some 250-300 Euro's more.
Obviously, I'd like to hear your opinions about the quality of these lenses. Apart from that and assuming that they are on par with each other as far as image quality is concerned, which is the better option? Buy the cheaper yet excellent Canon lens and reinvest in a FF one when and if I ever buy a FF body some two-three years later, or go for Sigma from the beginnning?
Thanks for your opinions.
Regards,
Cem
PS: Asher has advised me to wait some three months before I invested in a wide lens, but I already feel that I'll be lacking it on my 400D. The 24-105 I now have gives an equivalent of 38mm on the short end. So Asher; I hope you don't mind me doing some homework already ;-)