Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC HSM v. Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC HSM v. Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM

Jan 27, 2006. Tested here are the only two UWA lenses available in Canon mount (for APS-C sensors) that begin at 10mm (16mm FOV). Both are obviously popular choices that, by and far, receive high praises and excellent reviews. The 10-20 comes equipped with HSM and is a part of Sigma's "EX" pro-grade series; the 10-22 comes with Canon's USM and is not designated as an "L" pro-grade lens. There are a good number of crops to view in this test, so please take your time.

Quick comments:
*Sigma 10-20 $480, Canon 10-22 $690 [BH Pricing]. The Sigma is 70% the cost of the Canon (and includes an EX petal-type hood and EX black carry pouch).
*The Sigma renders a warmer tint (with the Canon being cooler); not a big deal, especially if shooting RAW.
*Under harsh lighting conditions (see Test3), the Canon fares better.
*The Canon tends to have slightly more "pop" out of the camera.
*Both yield solid center and edge resolution performance with the Sigma slightly better.
*The Canon has better flare-resistance characteristics.
*Distortion is present (especially at 10mm wide open) for both lenses but very acceptable being UWAs.
*CA is extremely well managed by both, with the Canon (arguably) being slightly better.
*Light fall-off is "acceptable" for both lenses at 10mm wide open; by f8 it's "negligible."
*The Sigma's AF is swift and silent (due to the HSM unit); it is also very accurate.
*The Canon's AF is "swifter" and also silent (due to its USM unit); it is also very accurate.
*The focus ring on the Canon is small, gritty, tight, and less refined than the Sigma (which is buttery smooth).
*While the Sigma is "only" 3 ounces heavier than the Canon, when each lens is "in hand" you can actually feel the difference. The Canon "feels" much lighter.
*Overall, these are 2 impressive UWA lenses with the Canon being IMO slightly better optically, though the build advantage goes to the Sigma. FWIW, I've reviewed countless full-frame captures of each lens both on screen (and printed out some comparison 11x14's), and by and far, it's EXTREMELY HARD to see any meaningful difference, save for the difference in color tone. If you shoot in RAW, it isn't an issue at all. Both lenses will satisfy as your UWA lens in your bag. And if you don't mind starting at 12mm, the Tokie is a VERY good one too.
*Note to D60/D30/10D owners that the Canon is an EFS mount and will NOT fit your body.

Jan 28 (day after comments): I spent a few hours early this morning, taking shots of various subjects, indoors and outdoors, and these 2 lenses are SO CLOSE IN RESOLVING POWER it's basically a wash. Both in center and edge resolution, the 2 lenses perform very similarly, it really depends on the specific accuracy of the AF on any given shot. Sometimes the Canon outresolves the Sigma, sometimes vice versa, the difference being the given AF accuracy of that particular capture. If I had to choose, it seems to me that the Sigma is slightly sharper (maybe 60% of the time, both in center and edge resolution), while in terms of contrast the Canon has the advantage (this doesn't change with AF accuracy, obviously). The Sigma generally gets very high resolution reviews (e.g., photozone, ephotozine), and from my findings, I'd agree. Both lenses reach their peak resolving power and contrast ability at f8-f11; perfect for landscapes. As they say, "F8 and be there." You really can't go wrong with either of these UWAs.

Here is the focal length to fstop break-down:
Sigma HSM
10mm f4
12mm f4.5
13mm f5
17mm f5.6

Canon USM
10mm f3.5
13mm f4
18mm 4.5

The Sigma's MFD is 9.4" while the Canon's is basically the same at 9.5" (both measured from the sensor plane, not the front lens element, which makes it "feel" a WHOLE LOT closer). In addition, the EX utilizes 3 pieces of special low dispersion (SLD) elements and 3 aspherical lens elements, while the Canon uses 1 super-UD glass element and 3 aspherical lens elements.

Here is my analysis on the Canon 1022 (C) and Sigma 1020 (S). "10" being the best, "1" being the worst...
Resolution (center): S10, C9
Resolution (edge): C10, S10
Contrast: C10, S9
Vignetting: C10, S8
Distortion (barrel): C10, S10
Distortion (pincushion): C10, S10
Flare: C10, S8
CA: C10, S9
Build: S10, C7
Handling: C10, S10
Aperture (speed): C10, S9
AF (noise): C10, S9
AF (speed): C10, S9
MFD & Magnification: S10, C9
Widest FOV: C10, S10
Bang for Buck: S10, C7
10D/D60/D30 compatible: S Yes, C No

[172,500 page hits]

Side by Side	Rear	Front	EX Side (A)
EX Side (B)	EFS Side	EFS Rubber Gasket	EX Weight
EFS Weight	Test1	Test2	Test2 EX
Test2 EFS	Test2 EX [PP]	Test3	Test3 EX
Test3 EFS	Test4	Photography Monthly UWA Test - April 2007	Digital Photo UWA Test - May 2007

post a comment

Matt		22-Feb-2009 19:51
Sorry, my bad. Didn't notice you tilted the camera upwards in the Canon shot (Test 3), which resulted in a wider angle of view in the upper portion of the image, but narrower in the lower one (most visible in the lower right corner). That would suggest that in comparable pictures Sigma (with a hood to prevent flare) could be just as good as the Canon - provided you manage to get a good copy.

Matt		18-Dec-2008 17:27
Don't know if anyone noticed, but the image taken with Sigma appears stretched horizontally - not just at the edges (most of the window on the right and the edge of the tree on the left "disappear" compared to Canon), where we could blame it on distortion (what a huge distortion would it then be, both absolutely and compared to Canon), but also at the very center of the image. Both cars seem to be wider on the Sigma - or is it Canon that "squeezes" more view into the frame :-) ? Anyway, this IMO disqualifies Sigma, but still big kudos to you Lightrules - this test also helps non-Canon users avoid being stuck with a lens that's useless for architecture.

Rick		13-Mar-2008 04:46
Just received the replacement. OK. I love this lens! Sharp, clear, and fun to use. I've rented the Canon 10-22 in the past, and this Sigma is right on par. And for 1/3 less the price, a very good addition to your arsenal.

Rick		28-Feb-2008 16:28
I just received the Sigma 10-20 yesterday. Today, I'm sending it back for a replacement. All distant subjects (beyond six feet) are blurry at the 10-15mm focal lengths. Very close subjects, when focused directly on, look great! Clear, sharp, great color. But when focusing on the subjects that this lens is designed for (ie: architecture, ceilings, landscapes) the details are considerably blurred from f/4-f/5.6.

lightrules		30-Nov-2007 18:56
Hi Martin, it's better with those UWA lenses to go with a slim version. The new Tokina 11-16 f2.8 really looks interesting. Take care.

Martin		30-Nov-2007 11:27
Hi. Also thanks a lot for great source of information. I'm planning to buy UWA lens for my 400D body, C10-22, S10-20 or T11-16. What kind of filters do you recommend for those lenses? Standard or thin? Thanks for advice! Martin

Sam (hortonsl62 on POTN)		21-Nov-2007 00:46
Thx for doing the direct comparisons.

Pablo Y��ez		02-Aug-2007 17:29
I've used both lenses pretty extensively and both are fantastic. I also strongly agree with your comments regarding the quality of images that the Canon EFS lens can capture in harsh lighting. This and the slightly cooler tones (GREAT deep blue skies) lean me slightly towards the EFS lens. You can see some images taken with the Canon that show these qualities here: http://www.pbase.com/pyanez/patagonia

R		21-Jul-2007 09:05
I think just the fact that these lenses are constantly compared, should tell something. People will always have a favourite, but that doesn't mean one is good and the other is bad.

lightrules		06-Jun-2007 22:23
It's certainly okay to disagree with my findings, but what you see here is how my two copies of the 10-20 and 10-22 performed under identical conditions. It could be that your 10-20 was slightly out of calibration or specs. But again, best wishes on your lens choice. BTW, you wrote as "guest" (anonymous) but your comments and style tell me you are "derekl" at POTN.

Guest		06-Jun-2007 21:49
First , thanks alot for your effort and time. I think that most of times your reviews are spot-on right. But this particular case, I disagree with your findings; I think most of tiems the Canon produces much better images if it is not a bad copy of it. The color of the Canon is much better which can be seen in a small print or an on-line sized pic . While the Sigma is a bit sharper than the Canon at center in lab tests , the Canon beats the Sigma hands down at edge and corner. The resolution difference is more clearly seen in real life use. It is just my opinion by shooting with these 2 lenses for about 7 days. I will keep the Canon and return the Sigma as opposite to your decsion . I tried to make me believe the Sigma is as good because I did wanna pay about 300US more for the Canon( in Asia, Canon lenses are expensive and Sigmas are really cheap) but I can not deny what I saw. The Canon is undeniably better (at least to my eyes and people who I asked on line about this) ,especially managing of flare andCA.

lightrules		08-May-2007 21:56
The yellow cast is fairly common with Sigma (and other) lenses. Canon lenses tend to produce a cooler color cast. But all this is easily adjusted in PP, especially with RAW. The Sigma UWA is truly an exceptional lens at a great price-point.

Mike		08-May-2007 21:44
Thanks for this test. So far it looks like very similar image quality, but the 10-20 has superior build quality, plus it comes with a hood and a case. You can find the 10-22 for $670 these days, and the 10-20 for $449, about a $200 difference (same as you had posted before). The only thing I'm concerned about is the yellow cast. But it looks like you took care of it in a RAW editor. Did you use a simple white balance adjustment? I'm doing alot of images for stock photography and I need something that can be fairly sharp without any PP. Really informative test. Thx.

lightrules		19-Apr-2007 15:32
The warmer/yellow color cast is generally representative of most Sigma lenses vis-a-vis their Canon counterparts. However, a few don't seem to exhibit this warmth as much like the 120-300 and 300-800 and a few others. But overall, I'd say it's fairly common, similar to other lens makers (Tamron).

matjaz		19-Apr-2007 06:52
Hi, just wanted to ask, do all sigmas display equaly yallowish images or does the yallow cast vary from copy to copy? THX for the test.

lightrules		02-Apr-2007 19:27
Hi, I wouldn't worry about getting a problem lens; chances are you will be fine. Unless you see something obviously wrong, just enjoy it. Shoot with it a lot. As for filters, you can get a multicoated UV filter for everyday use, and you can also buy a CP filter (although you will get uneven polarization across the frame). You might also want to consider the Lee or Cokin route; Google it and learn more about these kinds of filters. Enjoy.

TV		02-Apr-2007 17:41
What a great resource this is! Just wanted to know whether quality control is still an issue for the Sigma? If so, anyone got any examples of what to look for? Additionally, what filter would you recommend? I only really want lens protection, but would it pay to go for something more? I've heard some mention a UV one, but others criticising this and saying to go for Circular Polarisation instead. Any advice?

raul elizalde		16-Feb-2007 20:33
Thank you so much for your tests, this is really useful.

lightrules		04-Feb-2007 19:18
Hi Kathy, the kind of flare does vary from lens to lens and from lighting to lighting, be it ambient or articial. That said, I doubt you'll do much better with any other UWA lens with regards to flare for indoor/low-light shots. The best way to reduce the occurence of flare is to use the lens hood and do not use a UV filter. Also how you compose the shot can make a difference. Otherwise optically, the Sigma is right at the top with the Canon maybe only slightly better as to overall flare. Try and experiment more and see if you can reduce these "hot spots". Enjoy the light.

Kathy		04-Feb-2007 19:14
Thanks for posting this very helpful review. I bought the Sigma last year and it's been mostly great, but I'm finding flare to be a problem in low-light indoor shots. I'm told what I'm getting is "sagittal coma flare" and that it is a characteristic of the lens. Do you agree and is there anything I can do to get around this? I gather using a hood indoors won't help much.

JackJack		18-Jan-2007 03:40
I'm an owner of the Canon 10-22mm. the Ultra wide really give u impressive images! But w/o a hood, the flare is really a problem, so do get a hood! I haven't got a chance to play with the Sigma yet, but it sounds really good -especially for the price. BTW, price for the Sigma lens in HK is around USD$460, a bit lower than in US, right? If you get a chance to come to HK, remember to go to the place "Mong Kok" where u can find a lot of camera shops. But remember not the place called TST(Tsim Sha Tsui), a well-known tourist/shopping place, where a lot of "black shops" trying to "fish" tourists. Here is a good site giving you some real street prices of camera stuff in HK(prices in HKD) May be useful to you.

nippithon		17-Jan-2007 01:03
Thank you for a fine test, lightrules. The Sigma does seem to be the better bargain, at first. $200 less and does the same job... most of the time. But for some the Canon's 2mm more focal length might be handy, and the extra stop (half a stop at the short end) is not insignificant. So the price of the Canon seems about right, too.

lightrules		07-Nov-2006 19:49
Thanks Tom, it's hard to believe that it's been almost a year since I posted this test. But my views haven't really changed. Both superb UWAs and I've stuck with the EX since my copy is pretty darn good and am pleased with it overall.

Tom Yi		07-Nov-2006 19:47
Great test, I keep coming back. I've the Sigma myself and the biggest difference seems to be in price, increased flare, and color. The price difference is even bigger if you consider the cost of a lens hood and a bag for Canon. I don't think you can go wrong with either of the lenses.

Julian Hebbrecht		13-Oct-2006 10:09
I have tried out both in the shop on my 30D and when I checked my images back home , I noticed that the Sigma10-20 showed bad front focusing, that is, the area of sharpness was much closer to me than the point I had focused on. The Canon showed better sharpness over all. I decided to buy the Canon although I found the Sigma sturdier (but also heavier) than the Canon 10-22mm.

virtual_dave		11-Sep-2006 18:57
thanks- off to check it out. i didn't knoiw the sigma had such a nice build to it as well. good info. I thought that tokina was for the money sucha nice lens. And i agree it does get me that 2mm extra wide! gotta split hairs i guess LOL

lightrules		11-Sep-2006 04:24
Hi Dave, have you seen this http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/exvdx . Both are very good UWA lenses, but IMO if you're going to go wide, then go w-i-d-e. My preference is for the Sigma 10-20EX, even though both are very good.

virtual_dave		11-Sep-2006 04:19
in another life i had the tokina 12-24 on a d70. i chnaged over to Canon and am looking at a UWA. That Tokina was just a well built pice of stuff in the hand! felt great. the performance seemed great. i am just tossing around getting the tokina 12-24 for the canon or a light bit wider with teh Sigma 10-20. tough call especially since both are about $500. I have the canon 17-85 as my walk around. But tough to decide on the Tokina vs the Sigma. And i relaize sigma has a 12-24 as well. but that's not my interest. Any one have a slight push for me on the Tokina 124 or the sig 10-20? thanks....they are all great lenses so tough to split a few hairs at this level!! LOL

Linguist		23-Aug-2006 14:01
I am a proud owner of the Sigma myself (using it with the Nikon D50) and can confirm its vast range of eye-catching abilities. Being aware that we are not talking about a professional lens of several thousand Dollars, the feint disadvantages against the Canon cannot really justify the price difference. Over here (Germany) we get the Sigma for some 420.- Euo (which, at the current drop rate of the US-Dollar, would be some 530.- to 550.- Dollars).

Guest		22-Jun-2006 20:51
Didier Vanderperre Your such a full on WANKER!!!!

1440		25-May-2006 19:43
Thanks a bunch for these excellent tests! I'm in the market for a new wide-angle zoom and your tests (among others) have helped me decide. I'm going to buy the Sigma, even though I'm usually wary of third-party products because of compatibility issues and the likes. In this case I just can't justify buying the Canon, because if you factor in the Sigma's performance and accesoires, it just makes no sense to spend all the extra dollars to buy the Canon.

lightrules		13-May-2006 14:16
By not going "wrong" with these UWAs, I mean by that optically and their overall performance. I personally think the Sigma offers the most bang for buck, but they all are truly excellent performers. But your point is well-taken.

benca1		13-May-2006 06:46
You write, "You really can't go wrong with either of these UWAs." But if one lens is 70 percent of the cost, not figuring in the saved expense of the supplied bag and lens hood, then it seems as though you can go wrong in my opinion.. so long as your money is your own. The only hits Sigma takes in reviews is with regard to QC issues, which, as far as I've seen, are eventually resolved. The ultimate limitation in any lens is the cost as far as any consumer is concerned. Oddly enough it's the one quality totally absent from all lens reviews but yours.

Dang		25-Mar-2006 17:05
I ran across your galleries after buying the Sigma, and after viewing your tests I'm glad I did. I'll be back before my next lens though, Thanks!

lightrules		07-Mar-2006 21:24
Michael, I had the 12-24 for a good while. It's actually a good lens but the new 10-20 is both sharper and renders slightly better colors. Actually the Sigma 10-20 is about as sharp as UWAs come; IMO the class-leader in this regard. You can see some new comments and analysis here http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/1020ex

Michael Mattox		07-Mar-2006 21:09
Thanks for turning me on to this lens, which looks like a very nice alternative to the Canon. It may be me but the Sigma looks much sharper in the corners. I'm curious how this Sigma compares to the 12-24, which works on full frame cameras as well as crop cameras. I would like to avoid investing in EF-S (DC) lenses if possible but maybe I should just go ahead and accept it. :)

lightrules		27-Feb-2006 23:16
Peter, your copy looks fine. IMO it's "within spec" and performing as this UWA should. Go out and enjoy it. It's a fine lens indeed.

Peter Fjelsten		27-Feb-2006 22:42
I wonder if you would take a look at my Sigma 10-20 mm test images and maybe give me your opinion on the quality of my copy compared to yours? http://gallery.fjelsten.dk/v/peter/pixelpeeping/uwa/

lightrules		11-Feb-2006 16:35
Wayne, you're very welcome and congratulations on the 10-20EX. I am sure you'll find it is an excellent optic. 10mm is sure fun to shoot with!

wayne little		11-Feb-2006 08:51
Hello, thanks for your recent input to the thread I posted on photo.net. I ended up getting the sigma 10-20 yesterday. Wow what a lens. This is my first UWA and it is amazing, the whole new world this opens up is completly new to me. It sits on my 20d brilliantly, perfect size and weight. Thanks again, you have helped me make the right choice again. (chose my 24-70 & 70-200 with help from your recommendations) best regards wayne (www.cre8iveweddingphotography.co.uk)

lightrules		30-Jan-2006 05:30
Hi Jim, glad your Siggie is working out for you so well. I'm more than pleased with mine. Considering you get this kind of optical performance, HSM/FTM, fantastic build and finish, compatibility with all 1.6x bodies, 10mm wide, and the lowest price of the UWAs, it's no wonder the 1020EX is selling like hotcakes. Take care, enjoy the light, and get that 20D of yours working right!

Jim Clark		30-Jan-2006 01:38
Thanks for your efforts. I had already purchased the Sigma, having compared the two myself on a much more amateurish level than your tests. But I'm happy to see from your tests that I didn't make a "bad" decision, and I did save $680-$430=250 or so, paying the $430 from Sigma 4 Less two weeks ago. I'm having some back focus problems with my 20D and will be sending it to Canon for adjustment next week. Hopefully, my WA shots will be more accurate then. Thanks again! jimdetinman Jim Clark

Didier Vanderperre		28-Jan-2006 02:49
Very interesting, I got the Canon I'm glad I did.

lightrules		28-Jan-2006 01:44
Sorry I don't have any direct "hood on/hood off" comparisons of the Sigma. A hood will only help, though I'm not sure how much so at 10mm. Glad the tests are useful to you.

Lindsay		28-Jan-2006 01:30
Thankyou for this very useful test, it will certainly help to make a decision between these two lenses. Regarding the flare issues shown in Test3, do you have any images comparing the Sigma's flare with no hood to its flare with the hood attached, or if not do you have a subjective assessment of the usefulness of the hood in this respect? Thanks again!

click on thumbnails for full image