DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,
I have good friend (actually my daughter's partner) who is after an ultra wide zoom for a Canon 7D. He has narrowed his search (and budget I daresay) to either the Canon 10-22 EF-S or the Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM. The Canon had good reviews on Camerlabs, the Sigma has constant 3.5 (Canon is 3.5-4.5). I don't think he has dreams of going up to full frame so the aps-c probably doesn't matter too much. Has anyone got any firsthand experience of these lenses, or is there another one that we haven't looked at that you would recommend.

Samyang 8mm

Double check the specs on the Sigma. I have a 10-20 DC EX HSM that I quite like, but it is f/4-5.6 Maybe they have revised it but...

For me, it is more than good enough, but I spend most of my time at the other end of the zoom range. IT is just a "fun" lens for me. You are welcome to have a play, but it is Nikon mount.

THe Tokina 11-16 has had good reports here. Gerry?

Canon all the way. You can easily sell and buy the sigma if there is a change of mind. [which is highly unlikely]

Mr Darcy wrote:THe Tokina 11-16 has had good reports here. Gerry?

'tis a good lens - the only downside to it is the focal range, far too short, the 12-24 is probably better for the range, however if you do do some low light stuff (which is fairly specialised with a UWA) than the 2.8 is a good benefit. The only times i have really used the 2.8 is for aircraft cockpits (handheld) and astro stuff.. that said, this lens is damn sharp, very well built and a good price (i got it new for under 700)

I agree with Gerry although these days, the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is not that significant, as you can ramp the ISO a little. The zoom range of the 10-22 is definitely a winner for landscapes (is that the proposed use here?). There is less stuffing around with lens changes.

biggerry wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:THe Tokina 11-16 has had good reports here. Gerry?

'tis a good lens - the only downside to it is the focal range, far too short, the 12-24 is probably better for the range

Yep - you an Cam convinced me to go the 12-24 (Tokina) which is also an extremely good lens. My case is perhaps a little different since I already have the 8-16 for rediculously super wide stuff. If I didn't have that and was only going for one UWA (knowing what I know today and have used UWA's for lots of different photography styles and with filters, etc) (remembering I'm Nikon) I'd probably go the Nikon 10-24 or your 11-16 (and use it as an 11mm prime effectively )

I owned the Canon 10-22mm for a year or two before heading into fullframeland. There are quote a few posts on the forum so you might want to do a search.

It is a sensational lens but it has it's focal length quirks. 10mm is really wide, IMHO, too wide for landscapes. I prefer to have my landscapes compressed a bit. It is a phenomenal architectural imaging tool, and it takes some some amazingly funky portraits, if you like distortions etc.

I really miss the 10-22mm. If I was shooting with a crop sensor, I would get one straightaway.

Hope this helps.

Ozi.

I would quickly disregard the Sigma....esp the F/3.5 version. Lots of reports state that the newer f/3.5 cant match the older lens. The Canon EF-S 10-22 or the Tamron SP 10-24mm are worth looking at. I still vote either of the Tokina's (11-16 or 12-24).

Thanks for all the input. I've passed on all the combined wisdom- we'll see what he goes with over the next day or two.