Which of these UWA zooms should I pick?

2flyingyorkies · Sep 1, 2008

I'm looking for an ultra-wide zoom for my 40D for a trip to Europe. On previous trips, I've always wished I could go just a little wider than my 17-55/2.8 when shooting in small towns, so now's the time.

I've narrowed it down to three suspects (and only these three, unless there's a really good reason to consider something else):

Canon EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5
Sigma AF 12-24 4.5-5.6 EX DG
Tamron AF 11-16/2.8 AT-X Pro DX

All three have strong and weak points, and I'm having trouble deciding. My priority is image quality, followed distantly by weight.

Which do you recommend, and why? And why not the others?

Jeff J

Dubbie99 · Sep 1, 2008

I have the 10-22 and it is one my favourite lens on 1.6 crop. Stopped down it is very very sharp.

here is a sample:

I realise a shrunk down sample doesn't prove anything, but it's nice to see pictures in this forum!

It's a light lens that is also very well built for the money.

Paul De Bra · Sep 2, 2008

After using the Tokina 12-24 for over 2 years tried to move to the Tokina 11-16 (note it's a Tokina, not a Tamron). Failing to find a good one (I tried 5 copies that all had a decentering problem) I ended up with the Canon 10-22.

I can comment on the Canon and Tokina, not on the Sigma 12-24 which is for full frame anyway.

The Tokina 11-16 (potentially) has the best image quality (if you can find a good one) and the constant f/2.8 is very good to have and was the reason I tried to find one. It's not as wide as the Canon. It's heavy, built like a tank (as is the Tokina 12-24). It just feels and looks like an excellent lens. I did immediately notice that the zoom range is really very limited. This lens is just for UWA and will make you switch back and forth between it and the 17-55IS a lot.

The Canon 10-22 is smaller and lighter. Not as sturdy, but on par with other Canons like the 17-85IS and 17-55IS. It's the widest, and has generally good image quality. Between 17mm and 22mm I do not notice an image quality difference with my 17-55IS. At the wide end the corners are a bit softer (but some radial sharpening does wonders).

If weight is an issue, go for the Canon 10-22. If zoom range is an issue (fewer lens changes), go for the Canon 10-22.

If money is an issue and all you care about is just the best build quality and best image quality, try to find a uniformly sharp Tokina 11-16. It's worth the effort.

2flyingyorkies said:
I'm looking for an ultra-wide zoom for my 40D for a trip to Europe.
On previous trips, I've always wished I could go just a little wider
than my 17-55/2.8 when shooting in small towns, so now's the time.

I've narrowed it down to three suspects (and only these three, unless
there's a really good reason to consider something else):

Canon EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5
Sigma AF 12-24 4.5-5.6 EX DG
Tamron AF 11-16/2.8 AT-X Pro DX

All three have strong and weak points, and I'm having trouble
deciding. My priority is image quality, followed distantly by weight.

Which do you recommend, and why? And why not the others?

Jeff J

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D and and the Canon G6.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

jrarsenault · Sep 2, 2008

I am also considering a UWA lens and I've done quite a bit of research. My first choice is the:

Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX

PhotoZone gives a very high rating for this lens. It's conclusion says:

"The Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX is currently the best ultra-wide angle zoom lens for Canon EOS APS-C DSLRs... ...The build quality is on a very high level and its a joy to handle the lens out there. All-in-all a very sound package especially when considering the quite affordable price (around 600EUR/US$)".

I've also seen some very good reviews from people on this forum who own the lens. The problem with this lens is the availability... it's in short supply (or high demand). Despite the limitation in the zoom range, what attracts me most about this lens is the fact that the aperture is a constant f/2.8 right down the line. This would be great in low light situations.

My second choice would be the Sigma 10-20 lens. Also, a very good lens and has been rated very highly by several users on this forum. Price is good too and I like the wider zoom availability.

Of course the Canon lens is also very good. It is the highest in price, but a strong performer and well liked by users. Canon would be my 3rd choice (mostly because of price).

The unfortunate thing about all 3 lens is the fact that they are designed to be used with APS-C sensors which is fine for the Canon 40D (50D) but is of little use with a full frame like the 5D.

Good luck with your decision. I'm sure that any one of your choices would be a good one.

Ray

idarknight · Sep 2, 2008

I was in the same spot a couple of months ago and went with the Sigma 10-20 (which can be mounted to a full frame body with some vignetting). The Tokina wasn't available when I was looking or I might have gone that way with a constant 2.8. That being said, it is likely that most of your ultra wide shots will be taken in good light.

jrarsenault said:
I am also considering a UWA lens and I've done quite a bit of
research. My first choice is the:

Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX

PhotoZone gives a very high rating for this lens. It's conclusion says:

"The Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX is currently the best
ultra-wide angle zoom lens for Canon EOS APS-C DSLRs... ...The
build quality is on a very high level and its a joy to handle the
lens out there. All-in-all a very sound package especially when
considering the quite affordable price (around 600EUR/US$)".

I've also seen some very good reviews from people on this forum who
own the lens. The problem with this lens is the availability... it's
in short supply (or high demand). Despite the limitation in the zoom
range, what attracts me most about this lens is the fact that the
aperture is a constant f/2.8 right down the line. This would be
great in low light situations.

My second choice would be the Sigma 10-20 lens. Also, a very good
lens and has been rated very highly by several users on this forum.
Price is good too and I like the wider zoom availability.

Of course the Canon lens is also very good. It is the highest in
price, but a strong performer and well liked by users. Canon would
be my 3rd choice (mostly because of price).

The unfortunate thing about all 3 lens is the fact that they are
designed to be used with APS-C sensors which is fine for the Canon
40D (50D) but is of little use with a full frame like the 5D.

Good luck with your decision. I'm sure that any one of your choices
would be a good one.

Ray

--
Canon 30D, some lenses, Canon P&S and my Mac
http://www.boora.ca

Daniella68313 · Sep 2, 2008

the Canon has great color and contrast..it's a very nice lens and the widest.

if image quality is a priority..get the Canon.

2flyingyorkies said:
I'm looking for an ultra-wide zoom for my 40D for a trip to Europe.
On previous trips, I've always wished I could go just a little wider
than my 17-55/2.8 when shooting in small towns, so now's the time.

I've narrowed it down to three suspects (and only these three, unless
there's a really good reason to consider something else):

Canon EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5
Sigma AF 12-24 4.5-5.6 EX DG
Tamron AF 11-16/2.8 AT-X Pro DX

All three have strong and weak points, and I'm having trouble
deciding. My priority is image quality, followed distantly by weight.

Which do you recommend, and why? And why not the others?

Jeff J

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'

Daniella68313 · Sep 2, 2008

Paul De Bra said:
After using the Tokina 12-24 for over 2 years tried to move to the
Tokina 11-16 (note it's a Tokina, not a Tamron). Failing to find a
good one (I tried 5 copies that all had a decentering problem) I
ended up with the Canon 10-22.

interesting, what makes you think that the Tokina as the best image quality "if you manage to find a good one" wereas you did not take into consideration finding also a good one on the Canon.

There might be still some variation in the Canon lenses with some really good copy and some average copy.

Probably a good copy of the Canon has as good or better image quality than a good (rare it seems) copy of the Tokina.

The Canon that I used had really good and sharp images. I had no problem with corner sharpness at all.

Paul De Bra said:
I can comment on the Canon and Tokina, not on the Sigma 12-24 which
is for full frame anyway.
The Tokina 11-16 (potentially) has the best image quality (if you can
find a good one) and the constant f/2.8 is very good to have and was
the reason I tried to find one. It's not as wide as the Canon. It's
heavy, built like a tank (as is the Tokina 12-24). It just feels and
looks like an excellent lens. I did immediately notice that the zoom
range is really very limited. This lens is just for UWA and will make
you switch back and forth between it and the 17-55IS a lot.
The Canon 10-22 is smaller and lighter. Not as sturdy, but on par
with other Canons like the 17-85IS and 17-55IS. It's the widest, and
has generally good image quality. Between 17mm and 22mm I do not
notice an image quality difference with my 17-55IS. At the wide end
the corners are a bit softer (but some radial sharpening does
wonders).
If weight is an issue, go for the Canon 10-22. If zoom range is an
issue (fewer lens changes), go for the Canon 10-22.
If money is an issue and all you care about is just the best build
quality and best image quality, try to find a uniformly sharp Tokina
11-16. It's worth the effort.

2flyingyorkies said:

I'm looking for an ultra-wide zoom for my 40D for a trip to Europe.
On previous trips, I've always wished I could go just a little wider
than my 17-55/2.8 when shooting in small towns, so now's the time.

I've narrowed it down to three suspects (and only these three, unless
there's a really good reason to consider something else):

Canon EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5
Sigma AF 12-24 4.5-5.6 EX DG
Tamron AF 11-16/2.8 AT-X Pro DX

All three have strong and weak points, and I'm having trouble
deciding. My priority is image quality, followed distantly by weight.

Which do you recommend, and why? And why not the others?

Jeff J

Click to expand...

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D and and the Canon G6.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

--

http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'

rangerross · Sep 2, 2008

I recently purchased the Sigma 12-24 based on advise from this forum. It appears that this lens suffered from QC issues in the past and getting a good copy was hit or miss. As you will read in the thread below Sigma's QC has improved and new copies are quite good. The first one I looked at (and bought) is very sharp in the center and corners. This lens has an added bonus of being able to be used on a FF camera as well as a crop sensor such as the 40D.

My friend has the Canon 10-22. It is a great lens. What I did notice when comparing the two lens was that at 10mm the Canon suffers from a little barrel distortion at the extreme edges - the Sigma does not!

Check out the thread below for more information and examples (from other forum members) of what this lens is capable of:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=29086613

Andy Blanchard · Sep 2, 2008

If you are only planning on using the lens with a 1.6x crop body, then the Canon has a lot going for it - it's probaby the best UWA zoom option for an EF-S body. However, if your future plans include possibly going to full frame then the Sigma is simply awesome. I can only go by my copy - like many recent buyers of the lens, I kept the first one I got so I think the initial QC issues are probably resolved - and it ticks all the right boxes. The contrast is very good, I have almost no distortion and even in the corners it's so small you need to get out a ruler to find it, and a very slight softness in the corners wide open disappears completely at f/8.

The only caveats; no front mount filters (although I've hand-held NDs in front of it before now and there's a rear gelatin holder) and I fear for the front element getting scratched. It's about the size and curvature of a ping-pong ball and protrudes almost to the front of the tiny built-in petal hood, so easy to scuff and it's a devil to clean if you get anything on it.

It is, however, seriously good fun to use; if you think 10mm on a 1.6x is wide, you should see 12mm on a full frame!

Andy

olsem · Sep 2, 2008

--

If you can wait a month or so I would suggest to wait for a first serious review of Tamron 10-24/f3.5-4.5

photonius · Sep 2, 2008

2flyingyorkies said:
I'm looking for an ultra-wide zoom for my 40D for a trip to Europe.
On previous trips, I've always wished I could go just a little wider
than my 17-55/2.8 when shooting in small towns, so now's the time.

I've narrowed it down to three suspects (and only these three, unless
there's a really good reason to consider something else):

Canon EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5
Sigma AF 12-24 4.5-5.6 EX DG
Tamron AF 11-16/2.8 AT-X Pro DX

All three have strong and weak points, and I'm having trouble
deciding. My priority is image quality, followed distantly by weight.

Which do you recommend, and why? And why not the others?

Jeff J

why the Sigma 12-24 and not the 10-20 ? (since the other two are for crop as well). The 12-24 is for FF, and has a bulging front element. No filters. (eg. CPL).

anyway, I went for the canon, and am happy, also because it is really flare resistant, the best of them all. and flare is an issue with UWA.

2flyingyorkies · Sep 2, 2008

Thanks for the input, everyone.

I knew that the 11-16 was a Tokina - my brain must have failed while I was typing...

Anyway, in response to some of the comments:

I had decided against the Sigma 10-20 APS-C lens (which some might have confused with the 12-24 FF lens I was looking at) due to some poor reviews, particularly on photozone. If it's better than the reviews say, then I'll take a second look.

I'm not sure if I'll be going FF anytime soon. I just bought my 40D a few months ago, so a new body is definitely a few years out at minimum.

The reports of copy variation in the Tokina scare me a little. I really don't have the patience to return a lens several times in search of a "good" one. I agree that the good ones seem to be really good, but the bad ones might be equally bad.

I'm not in a rush, so if the new Tamron pans out, that might be an option too.

The Canon seems to be the default choice, and there's definitely something to be said for assured compatibility, compactness, and low weight with good IQ.

I haven't decided yet, and finding good reports about each of the three lenses I'm looking at hasn't made it any easier. It does give me a good feeling that I'm not looking at any dogs, though

Thanks again!

Eric Sorensen · Sep 2, 2008

IF you think you will upgrade, the sigma 12-24 is great. Also consider the Sigma 10-20 EX DC. It's cheaper and is a fine lens, too. I had one for a while and I liked it. Fast focusing and sharp.
--

Bossier City, Louisiana
http://www.pbase.com/ericsorensen

GKN · Sep 2, 2008

I have the Sigma 10-20mm and it is excellent. I compared with the Canon at the time of purchase - I couldn't tell any significant difference in image quality (each had minor pros and cons), but the prices were significantly different. Both were excellent.

Blue II · Sep 2, 2008

2flyingyorkies said:
I'm looking for an ultra-wide zoom for my 40D for a trip to Europe.
On previous trips, I've always wished I could go just a little wider
than my 17-55/2.8 when shooting in small towns, so now's the time.

I've narrowed it down to three suspects (and only these three, unless
there's a really good reason to consider something else):

Canon EF-S 10-22 3.5-4.5
Sigma AF 12-24 4.5-5.6 EX DG
Tamron AF 11-16/2.8 AT-X Pro DX

All three have strong and weak points, and I'm having trouble
deciding. My priority is image quality, followed distantly by weight.

Which do you recommend, and why? And why not the others?

Jeff J

--
Steve

photonius · Sep 3, 2008

2flyingyorkies said:
Thanks for the input, everyone.

I knew that the 11-16 was a Tokina - my brain must have failed while
I was typing...

Anyway, in response to some of the comments:

I had decided against the Sigma 10-20 APS-C lens (which some might
have confused with the 12-24 FF lens I was looking at) due to some
poor reviews, particularly on photozone. If it's better than the
reviews say, then I'll take a second look.

Lightrules ( http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests ) has various tests,
including sigma 10-20 against canon 10-22 and others.
The Sigma can be good, but I think you need to get a good sample.

2flyingyorkies said:
I'm not sure if I'll be going FF anytime soon. I just bought my 40D a
few months ago, so a new body is definitely a few years out at
minimum.

The reports of copy variation in the Tokina scare me a little. I
really don't have the patience to return a lens several times in
search of a "good" one. I agree that the good ones seem to be really
good, but the bad ones might be equally bad.

Sigma seems to be the worst of all regarding copy variation.

2flyingyorkies said:
I'm not in a rush, so if the new Tamron pans out, that might be an
option too.

The Canon seems to be the default choice, and there's definitely
something to be said for assured compatibility, compactness, and low
weight with good IQ.

When I bought the Canon, I hadn't given much thought to flare,
but after having seen these flare tests with the Tokina:
http://www.photozone.de/active/forum/ShowMessage?ID=1100508A

I am happy that I went with the Canon. If you want or not,
with UWA your chances of getting the sun into the view or close are
much higher, and the Canon is really flare resistant, even without hood.

2flyingyorkies said:
I haven't decided yet, and finding good reports about each of the
three lenses I'm looking at hasn't made it any easier. It does give
me a good feeling that I'm not looking at any dogs, though

Thanks again!

sparkling elk · Sep 3, 2008

can confirm the good colours + contrast of the 10-22. it is perfectely balanced on a crop body: a joy to use both together.

John down under · Sep 3, 2008

rangerross said:
I recently purchased the Sigma 12-24 based on advise from this forum.
It appears that this lens suffered from QC issues in the past and
getting a good copy was hit or miss. As you will read in the thread
below Sigma's QC has improved and new copies are quite good. The
first one I looked at (and bought) is very sharp in the center and
corners. This lens has an added bonus of being able to be used on a
FF camera as well as a crop sensor such as the 40D.

My friend has the Canon 10-22. It is a great lens. What I did notice
when comparing the two lens was that at 10mm the Canon suffers from a
little barrel distortion at the extreme edges - the Sigma does not!

As you know, the Sigma doesn't do 10mm, so you can't compare barrel distortion at 10mm for both lenses. I assume you meant the Sigma at 12mm has less barrel distortion than the Canon at 10mm and perhaps even the Canon at 12mm. Barrel distortion is easily fixed in PP, but the 2mm of wideness lacking in the Sigma means a hard limit.

For use on a cropped camera, I prefer the wider FL available with the Canon 10-22. The Sigma 12-24 is ultra wide on a FF body.

rangerross said:
Check out the thread below for more information and examples (from
other forum members) of what this lens is capable of:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=29086613

--

Cheers John - Adelaide Australia - http://www.pbase.com/jhphoto - Canon 40D - Fuji F100fd

photonius · Sep 3, 2008

2flyingyorkies said:
Thanks for the input, everyone.

I knew that the 11-16 was a Tokina - my brain must have failed while
I was typing...

Anyway, in response to some of the comments:

I had decided against the Sigma 10-20 APS-C lens (which some might
have confused with the 12-24 FF lens I was looking at) due to some
poor reviews, particularly on photozone. If it's better than the
reviews say, then I'll take a second look.

The Sigma 12-24 doesn't seem to be a stellar performer either, look at this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

perhaps again an issue of sample variation - but perhaps also the 12-24 is meant for FF, and any tests done on FF would look better compared to crop.

Which of these UWA zooms should I pick?

Member

Active member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

New member

Senior Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts