Originally Posted by Dragoon
I've tried looking a bit for a review, but there's still none for the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, anyone here had the opportunity to do some trial shots with one of those and compare to the older version?
EDIT: Nevermind... one was posted few hours ago.
Here you go. SLRGear review on Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
Wondering if the constant f/3.5 and the ELD glass is worth the extra $160. All this because I'm also wondering if the EF-S 10-22 is worth the extra $300 over the old sigma. (Outrageous exchange rates)
I just read that review myself, and from what I gather, it's on par with the Canon 10-22. With the Canon you have more range (a whopping 2mm, I know!), the Canon is a little
sharper overall, particularly corner sharpness, and the CA control on the Canon is a bit better. The Sigma has the constant aperture obviously and for less cost that the Canon's variable aperture. They both have ultra-sonic focusing. I'd say the Sigma is the better bang-for-buck by far, fairly impressive offering.
I think the extra low dispersion element is worth it, because if you look at the older Sigma 10-20, it's CA is almost off the chart. CA is fixable PP however, but IMO it's nice having good control over it in the optics.
And also IMO I think variable aperture isn't a big loss for a UWA lens. Sure, it would be useful, but with such a wide angle lens, hand holding is much easier (I've hand held shots @10mm for 1" before with no blur) and if you're shooting landscapes, you might not use a wide aperture that much anyhow. It's a mixed bag.