The 10-22 from personal experience does give a slight fisheye effect at 10mm. I like it - it's a nice lens. Others out there say that the Sigma 10-20 is better.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the point of whether you were wanting a fisheye or more of a standard type lens.
Crisp backgrounds come from a lot of different things; probably the main one being depth of field. Also the better the glass inside the lens, the better the picture quality.
Seaeagle2323 From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 8 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2843 times:
hey champ thanks mate yer i guess ill try both and see! nikon :P vs canon lol no coment ahah thanks ill go to the same spot and use the 100-400L and try maybe iso 100 shutter 500 and apature around 9 ish and see what i get just need a nice crisp sydney morning! thanks!
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2838 times:
Given that you're talking about the 10-22, I assume you have a crop camera. 15mm on a crop camera is not really wide enough. The 10-22 is much wider. I have it and I personally love it. But, it doesn't have the fisheye effect. If you want to go wide and with the fisheye effect, have a look at the Sigma 10mm fisheye.
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 1): Others out there say that the Sigma 10-20 is better.
No chance! The Sigma has a bit better build quality, but image quality-wise the Canon is better. The Sigma might be considered better value for money though (if, and that's big if, you get a good copy).
tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2823 times:
If you want a real 180 degree diagonal fisheye for your crop camera, look to the Sigma 10mm.
Chukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1935 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2820 times:
Quoting SNATH (Reply 3): if, and that's big if, you get a good copy
Exactly right. I bought one, and it was atrocious - only the centre of the image was sharp, and all the edges were blurry. I exchanged it for another copy; the new one was better but still not the image quality I expected; to get acceptable sharpness over all the image, I had to close the aperture at least to f/11. Had it serviced by Sigma a few weeks ago, and now it is excellent, all sharp even at f/4. I finally have the lens I wanted but only after so much hassle.
SNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, RR: 24 Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2815 times:
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 5): I bought one, and it was atrocious
Join the club.
Quoting Chukcha (Reply 5): I finally have the lens I wanted but only after so much hassle.
I really wonder how Sigma can make money with all the returns and repairs... Sure, they don't spend much on QA, but it really shows!
Tony
Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
Well that's good to know! A long way away but I think I'll eventually get this lens. I just haven't had the best experience with Sigma and I'd rather stick to Canon.
Not sure about that. I've done some research, and I've read quite a few accounts stating that Sigma 10-20 image is is sharper than that of the Canon 10-22 (that is, if you get a good copy of the Sigma).
Some people suggested, when buying a Sigma 10-20, one should try it in store.
I'm not defending the Sigma, and I believe they should have better quality control. But I'm just trying to be fair. I know a few people, a couple of them being also A.net photographers, who are absolutely happy with their Sigma 10-20. And so am I, now that I got it fixed.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Jul 2009, 8 posts, 
awsome pics i think he uses a 15mm fish eye not sure! also 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5672 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3232 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
