Sigma 12-24 vs EF 10-22

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.

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 ;-)

Cem,

For me I'd follow the choice of Nicolas Claris who has shown me large blow ups with that Sigma and his 1DsII. They are both great lenses. I'd tilt towards the Sigma.

Asher

I was torn between the EF-S and Sigma and opted for the 12-24, mainly because I wanted to use it on non EF-S mounts and its wide!

Its pretty consistent sharpness wise at 12mm and even better at 24mm. The lens does suffer from extreme field curvature (doesnt like flat object) but exhibits very very low barrel distortion. I've seen more distortion on a Canon EF24-70 or EF-S 17-85. I find MF using hyperfocal distance is the best way to use it.

The only downside is CA which is less than ideal at the 12mm end. The colours are good but they do differ from Canon lenses.

I have tested this lens on the 1DMkIIN, 20D, 10D and its works well with crop sensors, however I took it along to Canon Pro Exp and tried it the 5D an 1DSMkII. It is a little soft at the edges (what isn't), but more importantly its difficult to keep your feet out of the frame, its that wide.

If you want to see a 1DS FF image taken with it let me know, its truly amazing how much you can capture!

BTW, its built like a tank, unlike the EF-S. Also, the front element looks like something from outer space and doesn't take filters that easily, only drop in gel ones behind the rear element.

John,

Great feedback, thanks a lot!
I'd very much like to see a sample. I'll PM you my e-mail address on the double .

Cheers,

Cem

Cem, just a quick reply (like Asher, I'm on deadline too LOL). I had the 10-22 for my 20D and it was an outstanding lens. Like you, I used it in conjunction with the Canon (but in my case, the 24-70L). I never tried that Sigma, but own others (15-30, 20 f/1.8 and 15 FE) and like them---but I can attest to the 10-22 being a terrific lens--at least mine was. The thing to keep in mind, if you would like to go the Canon route, is that you will not lose much if/when you move to a FF--I sold mine easily and with little loss. If, however, you are going to just add a FF and not replace the 1.6x body, then probably the Sigma is the way to go.

Diane

Guys,

All this defects will be dealt with by automatic lens correction software that will take the EXIF info and correct everything you want: vignetting, contortions, color issues and more.

Besides DXO withing 4 months we'll have many more options to consider.

For now, unless you have particular needs to deal with pristine architecture (then you'll consider LF or MF cameras with movements and digitar type lenses). Most of the aberrations are not significant and those that are can be readily corrected in CS2. These lenses are all fantastic for most photography.

Even moderm stitching software can do such corrections for you. One can spend the $$$ for fine Zeiss and Leica lenses, but for most work, this is not needed. For sure going first class is fine. However, Volvo's and Fords work fine too! I think the investment in sharper lenses become more critical for 1DSII and the 5D. Still, Nicolas uses the Sigma and to me that's a pretty goos stamp of approval.

The good thing about any of these lenses is that as one upgrades, one can resell these lenses to others stepping up. They are a form of currency.

Asher

Just to let you know, Jonh was very kind and has sent me a 16MB big RAW file, taken on a 1Ds MkII with the 12-24 lens. The image just blew me off my socks, it is that incredible!
Lots of details and sharpness in the central areas, but some CA and smearing of details towards the corners. It is nothing one can't live with, though. The overall impression is just great.
Thanks a lot John. BTW, I have tried the lens the other day on the camera. It is built like a tank indeed. Also, the front element where the filter is supposed to go on is a rather curious construction. I am not particularly enchanted by that, I must admit.

@Diane: you have touched a weak spot with your post. I am still considering the 10-22 very seriously, although I haven't seen many pictures taken with it yet. Asher also seems to be agreeing that these lenses can be sold with little loss later, so maybe, just maybe ;-)

Cheers,

Cem

So it seems it is my turn!
I do agree with Asher (lense corrections etc.) and John Nevill.

I've never used the EF 10-22, so I can't compare.
Mine is sharper than the Canon 17-40 (which was not that bad).
I agree with some softness in the corners, but not so much.
Sample?-:






http://www.cata-lagoon.com/shoots/Diaporama_LagoonPower44_Tropics/images/_G8A6013.jpg



the helicopter blades will be easily removed during postprod…
I use it at ƒ8 to ƒ11 when possible.
Even if you have to lean (LOL) to avoid your feets when shooting it's a great lense, world is different when seen thru it! amazing and it brings creativeness!
PM me if you want a Raw…

[EDIT] added this one:

Hi Nicolas,

How can one "disqualify" the 12-24 after seeing these beautiful pictures?
I have visited your web site a few months ago to enjoy your great photography and thus knew those photos. But obviously I did not associate them with this particular lens. Now I understand where Asher is coming from. If a pro like you choses to use it for serious assignments, who am I to disagree? . Thanks!

Cheers,

Cem

Nicholas--that second one just 'felt' like speed. Wonderful.

Diane

I have the Sigma, which I purchased when I had only my Canon 20D. I am glad I prepared for an eventual move to FF by purchasing this lens instead of the alternatives. Once you have such a lens, it becomes beloved in a way, and it would be hard to part with it!

The only real difficulty with the lens is the one you pointed out. It is VERY hard to use filters on this lens. It does not accept screw-in filters, and the idea of using a rear gel filter is, IMO, for the birds.

So, one is relegated to something like the Lee filter apparatus, and I do believe you need the big glass filters set up, unless you do some modification to the lens cover of the lens. This Lee-set up is very large - I think it is really for video equipment. The glass plates are 5" or 6" square, which is a tough proposition for handy storage in a camera bag.

I have resigned myself to taking multiple exposures instead of trying to use gradient filters.

But the lens takes wonderful photos! If you do plan to purchase one, please be aware that there was an issue with QC - some people got bad copies, which weren't very sharp, so be sure to test yours out quickly.

Here is one @ f/11 at 24mm using a Canon 20D:


And here is one @ 12mm on the 20D. This shot was hand-held.

Cem and Diane
thanks for your kind words.
As I said, this lense opens your mind to different framing/viewing… particularly for showing speed.

Roger Lambert is right about filters, but on my own, the only filters I use are UV to protect front lense from salt and dust…

FYI the 1st shot (about 15mm) was made with a tripod, this shot was made for an ad (very succesfull…) you can watch the "making of" on the video page of my website.
All other shots are handheld from a chopper.

One trick in general, like with all ultra wide, is to be as perpendicular as possible to the plane you're photographying, therefore you'll avoid a lot of lense distortions, you'll be even be able to have all vetical lines… straight and… vertical! really amazing lense, and not that expensive.

PS because of this thread, I'll change my signature!
--
OT: As for all my gear I bought it to my local dealer even if a bit more expensive than on the web, I'm so happy to see them alive, giving good advices to pros and amateurs… worth the 5% more to pay!

Nicolas, considering Roger's statement that you can't put a screw-on filter on the front of the lens, how do you protect it with a UV filter?

KrisCarnmarker said:

Nicolas, considering Roger's statement that you can't put a screw-on filter on the front of the lens, how do you protect it with a UV filter?

Click to expand...

I don't!
Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

I do with all other lenses…

Nicolas, lovely 2nd shot of the motor yacht.

BTW, I also bought my copy from a dealer, i'm not really an advocate of buying 3rd party lenses off ebay, they may be cheaper but thats normally where the bad QC products end up.

New for me

I recently bought the Sigma 12-24 for my 5D. I think it's crisp and I am happy with the few images from it. The lenscover isi n two pieces and one acts like the lens shade to protect that bulbous front element. If you want to shoot at the widest, you have to remember to take it off otherwise you have a circular frame on your work.

Since Nicholas mentions not using a UV protective filter with the 12-24, I thought I would mention that its the same with the 15-30. Looking at the pictures of the 12-24 I see it has the same type of attached petal hood as the 15-30 and I've found over a number of years with my lens that that is sufficient protection (there really is no other possibility). The lens itself is a bit bulbous, but there are many of us using the Sigmas like this without problems. I wish that the 12-24 had been around when I bought the 15-30 for just that bit wider and with HSM also. I doubt you would be sorry buying this lens.

Diane

I made Nicolas' images load so the beauty appears automatically w.o. clicking through.

Sigma is really a first class lens and camera company. I don't know who actually melts the glass and who grinds the lenses or builds them. However, Sigma lenses should always be considered.

We tend to be loyal to particular brands and sometimes this is no more than soccer or basketball fans supporting their home team.

Let me share with you that Nicolas Claris won a prestigious industry award using this lens.

This educated me and told me that for practical purposes of making such wonderful pictures to impress clients (and that you can enlarge to huge sizes from a 1DsII), you might not need those prime exotic lenses!

Asher

So this is what has happened in the end.....

Hi All,



The board seems to be a bit slow todays since some of you are out there visiting the Photography Exhibition of American Life (no, I'm not jealous at all, really ).

Well, I went out to buy the Canon EF 10-22mm the other day. It was a very tough decision to make and I have lost some sleep in the process of making it I must admit.

A couple of weeks ago, I went to my favourite photo retailer and tried both lenses on my Canon 400D (XTi). I have taken some 10 shots with each lens in the shop. The lighting was not exactly ideal so I had to push up the ISO up to 400-800 to get decent shots. Also, the lighting sources were mixed so it played havoc on the WB. Nevertheless, I took the shots and came back home to scrutinize them. I have used various RAW converters to see which one would deliver better results and have settled on the Canon DPP with no adjustments made to sharpness, contrast, etc (only the WB has been changed). In PS CS2, I have applied some Noise Ninja processing to the pictures in order to reduce the high ISO noise and corrected levels and curves. I have then peeped pixels (I admit being guilty by doing so), looked at the sharpness, resolution, barrelling, pincushion, vignetting, you name it. Next, I have applied the proper output sharpening and have printed some samples at 100% (cropped to A5 size, effective size would have been A3), A5 and A4 sizes. Next, I have shown these prints to family and friends to get their opinions on the differences, provided that they’ve noticed any to start with (which they usually did not). To make a long story short, the Canon EF 10-22mm has in the end delivered better results (in my subjective opinion) compared to the Sigma 12-24mm. Mind you, the differences were only visible at A4 print sizes or bigger.

I have tried very hard and very long to convince myself that I should go for Sigma since:
- it is a FF lens
- Nicolas and many others pro’s use it and recommend it (which really is the best recommendation on can get AFAIK <smile>)

The reasons for choosing Canon in the end were:
- It is wider (10mm instead of 12mm makes a difference on my cropped sensor camera while it would not be such a big issue on a FF camera).
- It is faster: F 3.5-4.5 compared to F 4.5-5.6 of Sigma
- It is sharper and the colour temperature is quite similar to my EF 24-105mm lens (Sigma is significantly warmer)
- It takes filters and polarising filters (77mm thread) whereas Sigma does not
- As Diane has pointed out earlier, I can sell it anytime if I want to upgrade to a new body later.

Well, there you have it . I would be glad to post some of the samples if anybody would like to see them. Thanks to all, again, for the great support and advice you have given me. It has been greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Cem

Cem,

Your report is excellent. This is exactly what I would like to see more of.

Since I am now looking at the wonderful 16"x20"prints taken with the Sigma 12-24mm lens and I'm enthralled by the beauty of the colors and sharpness, I can only imagine how happy you'll be with your purchase of the Canon. That particular color look and match with you other lenses is important. It would be at least for me, since I depend on merging cutout from one image into another for my oen artwork. Now it so happens that there is a filter in PS which I've never used, which does match the color palette in some way, but that is for experimentation.

I hope we'll see mouch more of reports like this which show how choices can be made on both objective and personal artistic logic, not just specs and price and prestige alone!

Asher

Hi Cem,

I'm glad you reasoned it through, and made your choice, and thanks for posting the results. Now you've decided, a few other points in your favour.
1) if things go out of focus, so you need to send the camera to canon, then they will check it with your canon lens, adjust the lens, if required. I do not think they will do the same for other brand lens.
2) if folk have chosen sigma full frame because they have a full frame camera, even with a cropped frame backup, that really invalidates their reasons, wrt yours.
3) a while ago, some sigma lens had to be rechipped or something to get af to work with some newer canon cameras. I'm not one to spread fud, but I would hope that later canon crop cameras will work with the canon lens you've chosen.

Best wishes,

Ray

Hi Asher, Ray,

Thanks a lot for your kind words. I have taken some pictures today with the new lens. The results so far are looking very promising so I am very excited . Looking forward to posting some of the end results in the near future.

Cheers,

Cem

An example of the 10-22mm

Hi guys,

Here is a test picture I've taken on my first day out using the EF 10-22mm.

The Chapel of the Seminary in Oudenbosch, Holland:



I can post some others as well if you want me to .

Cheers,

Cem

Edit: look here if you want to see the full sized version and the exif info:
http://opf.mediacentric.nl/albums/main.php/v/Cem/seminary_1.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

Hi Cem,

I remain almost terrified of my 10-22. Converging verticals, working beyond the ability to put everything in the frame, and such. Being so wide means flare is a constant concern. I like the lens, but I'm still trying to come to terms with it.

I would be interested to see more of your work with it. Maybe your images can help me begin to see in ultrawideangle.

Aaron, try scanning through these at Pbase. Some should give you an idea of what others are shooting with the lens.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_10-22_35-45_usm

Just to pitch in...

Sigma is not doubt a great lens, and *IF* I had a FF body there would be no question on my mind which one to choose.
However, thus far the only dSLR I own is 1.6 APC based Canon 30D, so EF-S 10-22 get me wider and faster shots.
When I get the FF body I will definitely get a different WA lens, simply because EF-S mount of the 10-22 would not work on it.
But until that time I think I'm a happy camper with 10-22

Here's a couple at 10mm:

I'll have one of each please! And on't get any fingerprints on the paintwork!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

I'll have one of each please! And on't get any fingerprints on the paintwork!

Asher

Click to expand...

Just one? And no backups? Not very wise! ;-)

Cem