i can rent the canon locally, but i won't be able to rent the sigma. is the canon worth $200 more. i know that it is one f-stop faster, i don't know how the IQ will compare between the two.

None of the above. If you get the Sigma 12-24, you won't outgrow it, since it's made for full frame (EF, not EF-S mount).

But if you buy the Canon now you will have an awesome lens that is as wide as you can get with out getting fishy. If you end up going FF you can sell the Canon for close to what you bought it for and consider what you lose as a rental fee. Then you can buy the Sigma. I rented a Canon 10-22 for two weeks and even though I ended up buying a 17-40 I hated giving up the super wide 10-22.

Scott

I've been considering the same, and I'm leaning towards the 10-20 Sigma. I don't plan on using full frame, but my thought was if I ever did I could just use the 10-20 on teh full frame and deal with just having to shoot at 12-13+ to avoid vignetting although I'm not sure how bad it would even be. This is kind of a moot point for me, its very unlikely I'll go full frame in the next few years at least.

My decision was based on price and what else I can get for that money, a $189 difference is big, then coupled with saving money going with the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 over the canon I'm at nearly $400-500 saved which can be used on other stuff.

Not sure if the sigma can be used at all on a FF w/o vignetting due to the image circle (I don't know either way)...

But from what I've seen on PotN they both have IQ "issues". IE what's to be expected with these super wides. One deals with flair better, the other deals with distortions better if I recall, so either way you're getting a great, but not perfect lens. Basically the way I look at them is that you have to ask is the build quality and 21~22mm worth the extra $200? They are both well built, but Sigma's crappy paint might chip lowering resale a bit (I have the same issues with my EX DGs). On the other side the EF-S is well built, but no L so I'd say they're about the same quality wise... In the end it's really the 21~22mm that makes you pick... The 12~24mm is an awesome lens, and for the same $$$ I'd probably pick it over the canon honestly, even for a 1.6. But if you don't think you're going to swap bodies (or at least sensor sizes) any time soon, the sigma 10~20mm is probably the best bet. I had the 12~24mm on my 10D and loved it then, but I bought it knowing I was going to a 1.3 shortly... But back then it was also the widest option available. There was nothing in the 10mm range at the time.

I'm pretty sure tardypizza has the canon though. Maybe he'll chime in.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

I'm pretty sure tardypizza has the canon though. Maybe he'll chime in.

Unfortunately, I have no experience with the sig 10-20. But I do love my canon 10-22. On a 1.6 crop it's wide, but not as wide as ben's 12-24 on a full frame (if you've done the math, you know this already). I have yet to notice any major vignetting or light fall off. If you plan on sticking with a 1.6 crop, I would recommend the 10-22 all the way. Yes, you pay for the canon name, but that name guarantees that the lens holds value. The 10-22 is a proven lens and one that is constantly sought after on most forums.

I wouldn't even consider the difference in f-stops between the 2 lenses as a criteria, nor would I consider the extra 2mm reach of the canon. Mainly because when I think wide I think landscapes, and I'm already stopped down and as wide as I can go for those shots anyway. What I really want to do is try out the 10-22 wide open in a concert situation to see how it performs. It really is a unique perspective looking at the world that wide.

For what it's worth, I fully intend on keeping my 10-22 and also purchasing the 12-24 once I go full frame. I haven't heard enough about the sig 10-20 to have an opinion on it either way.

Ben, do you know which lens handles flare better? I might consider the Sigma 12-24 (can't do the Canon due to lens mount) but if it's less flare prone that would be much more important to me than slightly less distortion.

the canon is "better" in CA and flare says lightrules:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uwatest

I meant of the 12mm lenses though, the 10mm will likely vignette on my camera.

the 12~24mm compared to what????
There really isn't anything to compare it too... I've been wanting to get my hands on a 17~40mm to compare them myself, but I've never seen much on the 12~24mm anywhere. I jumped on it when I got my 1DmII years ago and love it, but I have zero technical tests to back anything up.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

the 12~24mm compared to what????
There really isn't anything to compare it too... I've been wanting to get my hands on a 17~40mm to compare them myself, but I've never seen much on the 12~24mm anywhere. I jumped on it when I got my 1DmII years ago and love it, but I have zero technical tests to back anything up.

A general comparison.

I thought you were comparing the 12-24 to the 10-22 and the 10-20. I must have misunderstood you then.

Well yeah, I'm suggesting it, but the comparison of less/more flare and optical issues was with the 10~20mm to the 10~22mm.... I've never seen my lens compared to anything before... I don't think I've ever even seen a review. I just bought it as soon as I could afford one.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA:IT&ih=018

has anyone shopped with J&K cameras on ebay?

Might read this:
http://forums.photographyreview.com/...ad.php?t=20155


I'd much rather spend $50 more and get it worry free from B&H.

word. that is why i asked.