Ultra-wide lenses

[SpeedyManiac]

Hi guys,
I'm looking at getting an ultra-wide lens in the near future. Right now I'm shooting with a Canon 30D and EF 28-135 IS lens so I need something a little wider to complement my current lens. I've been looking at the Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM and the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM. It looks like the Canon is getting better reviews, but it's limited to APS-C sized cameras. I'm planning on eventually adding a full frame camera (probably a 5D or whatever the next model in that line is) so it would be nice to have a lens that works with a full frame sensor. It'll probably be at least a year or two before I get another body so I'm sure I'll get my money's worth out of the Canon, but I still don't like that it won't cross over.

Is the image quality of the Sigma really that bad compared to the Canon? Is there any other lenses I should be considering?

Thanks.

 

[Chili]

I was always thrilled with the image quality of my sigma 70-200 until it died. I don't have any real world experience with any of the super wides but I know at one time I was looking at the Sigma 10-20 and the reviews were poor because of softness around the edges.

 

[Rich Rohrich]

I was looking at the Sigma 10-20 and the reviews were poor because of softness around the edges.

I must have gotten one of the good ones. The Sigma 10-20mm has been good to me for the last 3 years. I've never been disappointed using it, but I've limited my use to landscape stuff pretty much. :cool: It might help to note that I never shoot wide open with it. I'm always in the F8-F16 range. I'm not sure I'm a good enough shooter to see the difference a $1500 Nikon wide angle would make.

Tom Hogan posted a detailed review recently that addresses the good and bad points of the 10-20. His experience seems pretty close to what I've seen. http://www.bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm

Learning how the angle impacts perspective seems like a key to the use of the wide lenses.

The flare was my fault, I forgot the lens hood. :bang:

 

[SpeedyManiac]

Thanks for the info on the Sigma 10-20, but it isn't really one I'm considering. If I go for a lens for a reduced frame camera, it'll be the Canon 10-22 since it has gotten very good reviews. The question is if I want to limit myself to a lens that only works on 1.6x crop factor cameras.

I noticed the sigma 12-24 has a rear filter holder which I don't think works with a polarizer. I've heard mixed reviews on using a polarizer on an ultrawide. My thoughts are it wouldn't really work since the sky would look pretty funky with part polarized, part not. Thoughts?

 

[NewHampWoodsRider]

I was in the same boat and sprung for the Canon EFS 10-22mm over the Sigma due to the fact that Sigma seems to have a few quality issues,and the Canon is sharper when cropped in.

Since picking this lens I have not regretted it one bit.
Its not the fastest but with a mono pod or tri-pod it will be just fine.
Here are a few recent photos I took with it:

Keep in mind on a 1.6x crop sensor it is really like a 16mm-35.2mm compared to a full frame body.

The 10mm-22mm was designed to use on a crop body body.
Some people have switched the mount and used it on a full frame body. Not proven to be totally compatible.

If you are considering upgrading to a full frame sensor body consider the EF 16-35mm F2.8L. This will work on a crop frame as well as a full sized frame.
Just keep in mind it will not be as wide as the 10-22 on your crop sensor, however will be just as sharp if not sharper, and a faster lens.

 

[Okiewan]

I had good luck with both the Sigma and the Canon, nod going to the canon for sharpness from corner to corner.