UWA - argh, which one to get!

p-mcdonald said:

maarensv said:

So went for the Tokina 12-24 II : slightly larger focal range than the 11-16, sharper and cheaper than the 10-22 and I do not mind it's slower max aperture.

Click to expand...

Very interesting suggestion. I've been toying with the idea of the 12-24 but had been put off by 12mm at the wide end. 10mm to 11mm isn't such a big jump, from 10mm to 12mm is noticeably tighter. I hear nothing but good things about the 12-24 though. How does it compare in sharpness to the 11-16? It's supposed to be built like a tank too, which can only be a good thing.

Click to expand...

I did not see a big difference in sharpness between the 2 Tokina's. The 11-16 maybe little sharper at wider appertures, but stopped down, where I use my 12-24 most of the time, I did not notice an obvious difference.

This will not make it easier, but at these focal length every mm counts. 10mm is a lot "more" then 12mm. I find 12mm wide enough for me and the 12-24 leaves no gap towards my 24-105. Maybe for you the 11-16 is a better choice.

The difference between 10mm and 12mm is huge. I've noticed a difference just moving from the 10mm on a crop to 17mm (17-40mm) on FF. That's like going from 10mm to 10.6mm. Didn't realize it would be noticeable until I actually made the switch. Just something to think about...

maarensv said:

What I most liked about the Canon 10-22 was the AF, which turned out to be more consistant, but what I did not like was corner sharpness compared to the Tokina's. Both the 11-16 and 12-24 are great at their shortest focal length, even wide open they are pretty sharp, where the 10-22 really needed to be stopped down. The Tokina's instead can have some some CA than the Canon (which is also not free from showing CA), but that can be corrected in Photoshop easily.

The 11-16 eventually fell off because of it's limited range. The Canon because of it's price and less good corners. So went for the Tokina 12-24 II : slightly larger focal range than the 11-16, sharper and cheaper than the 10-22 and I do not mind it's slower max aperture.

No regrets of buying the Tokina so far, although I sometimes wish I kept the Canon 17-40 also, really loved that lens.

Regards,
Sandor.

Click to expand...

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/

Inthebag said:

THeres a new Tokina 11-16 coming out

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/01/tokina-at-x-11-16-f2-8-pro-dx-&#8545 ;-lens-announced/

Click to expand...

To the Tokina 11-16 users - would the features announced in this new model be enough to delay purchasing the lens until July, or knowing what you do about the lens would you just bite the bullet and get the extra 4 months worth of use with the existing lens?

This will be my first and last lens purchase for some time, and I intend to hang on to whatever I buy for some years if that is any consideration.

Thanks for all the responses and advice so far. It's kept me swaying between the Canon and Tokina! I'll make my purchase after the weekend (unless enough people recommend waiting for the 11-16 II)

You r right as far as lens hood for UWA. But the 10-22 Canon is susceptible to flares. I wud recommend the lens hood for it any day.

Tokina 11-16 is rated widely. Just that it was almost costing me the same price as canon, I went with the Canon.

+1

Absolutely spot on observations. There is literally no lens out there to beat the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. Yes, there are lenses that come marginally close to its quality but sorry there are none that out performs the 10-22 but still priced lower. In whatever ways the comparison is made. ( optical quality, mechanics, sharpness, distortion, ca, etc) ....

Once u start to evaluate based on price, then any UWA lens out there holds its value for its price be it the Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 10-20 ....

The sigma 8-16 seems to be have good reviews & somehow I feel its built quality cud have been better for that price. However 8mm in UWA is tough to beat.

I love my Canon 10-22. A gem of a lens.

Arhh!

i'm trying to decide on an UWA at the moment too. i was pretty content on the canon until i read this thread.

i have a 15-85 on my 7D and i'm leaning towards either the canon or the sigma 8-16.

the thing holding me back from the tokina 11-16 is that is simply not wide enough. that extra 1mm from 10 to 11 is massive.

i want at least 10mm (canon), or 8mm (WOW!!) from the sigma would be amazing. i like that the canon has a longer zoom, but i could probably still go with the sigma seeings it opens so wide.

what are the problems the sigma??? what are the IQ differences with these two lenses?

--
Otis Drum

Damoo said:

+1

Absolutely spot on observations. There is literally no lens out there to beat the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. Yes, there are lenses that come marginally close to its quality but sorry there are none that out performs the 10-22 but still priced lower. In whatever ways the comparison is made. ( optical quality, mechanics, sharpness, distortion, ca, etc) ....

Click to expand...

Really? have you actually tried Tokina or Sigma 8-16? by the way I owned a 10-22 for 3 years, not because it was the best but simply because it was the only I can buy in 2004 for my crop body that gives me the kind of WA coverage, I personally wouldn't do it again in 2012...hahaha

Good for you.

Dan_168 said:

There is no single "perfect" lens, pretty much everyone you looked at is a compromise, you have to make up your mind what is your priority, is the cost? IQ? focal length? zoom range? zoom convenience vs prime quality.......If I am shooting with crop body, I will have both in my bag, they are very different lens for different kind of shooting.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the continued advice. I re-read your earlier post Dan and was drawn to the line 'very different lens for different kinds of shooting'. I'm having such a tough time deciding because I shoot a mixture: landscapes and architecture - the kind without a need for exact geometry - plus a bit of street thrown in there for good measure. And often in low light. I never found the Canon I had noticeably blurry in low light, but I presume the Tokina would beat it hands down in that kind of environment. In short I love shooting wide, so this will be my jack of all trades lense. With this sort of application what would you choose in 2012 Dan?

A left-field idea I've been tossing up is to buy a cheap and sharp walkabout lens now (ie. Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC) and wait till August or whenever and buy the new Tokina. Not sure how quickly I'll find stock, whether the new 11-16 will have teething QC issues, and what the renewed demand will do to the prices (guessing back up to $850 region). [sigh] The Canon is looking a bit simpler at this stage. I just don't like the idea that for the same dollar I'm getting a softer lens (albeit better in other regards).

Thanks for the suggestion but the 8-16 isn't on my radar because of the filter issue. With street and beach shooting I want a lens I can protect, given the cost.

PS: My other lenses are a kit 18-135mm and a 50mm f1.8. I generally shoot 50% of my shots with the UWA and split the rest between the other two lenses. Not sure if that changes anything.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/p_mcdonald/

I think I've made my choice. I had been hesitating all this while because while the Canon wins on range, lightness and flare, I though the Tokina won on IQ and build. Build is easily knocked out - I used the Canon for the past 8 months (goodness knows how old the model was) and had no issues with the build there. Yes, it feels cheap (despite the price tag) and dare I say it flimsy. But it hardly fell apart in my hands, and survived a trip around the world and countless walks to work in my bag. So if it ain't broke I'm not going to stress about it. That only left IQ..

I went through the digital-picture comparison once more very closely: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=718&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4 .There's obviously variables involved - slight manufacturing difference between copies, etc - but if the side by side is to be believed then these are my conclusions:

• Canon 10mm vs Tokina 11mm: Where I'd do most of my shooting. Both equally soft fully open. Tokina gets sharper earlier but I see no difference at all from f5.6 onwards. So a very minor benefit with the Tokina handheld, and a very minor benefit with the Canon mounted at the edges. Better contrast throughout to the Canon.
• 12mm: Canon wins fully open, Tokina has the edge once we get down to f5.6 & f8.
• 14mm: Tokina wins fully open and up to f5.6, Canon edges it out at f8.
• Canon 17mm vs Tokina 16mm: Canon wins, quite significantly at f8.

I was a bit surprised by these results because everyone seems to put the Tokina over the Canon in IQ. I honestly don't see that in the side by side images. I can see advantage to the Tokina as a hand-held lens, but to be honest the range of the Canon much better serves it as a street lens. And in street ISO and blur are less of an issue if the moment is captured, so I think the Tokina loses its advantage somewhat in that regard. And lets not forget I had to pixel peep 100% crops to see the subtle difference between the lenses. So in short they both had sweet spots but you'd need a magnifying glass to see the differences.

After way too much research I can only conclude although both are excellent lenses, the Canon will serve my purposes better. Rather than waiting till August or beyond for Tokina to address the flare I can get the Canon now and know I'll be getting a lens that runs neck and neck with the Tokina for IQ at the critical 10/11mm mark, and even passes it at a few critical points (14mm and onwards). Thanks for all the advice and good luck to others going through the same process!

p-mcdonald said:

After way too much research I can only conclude although both are excellent lenses, the Canon will serve my purposes better.

Click to expand...

I'm also deciding between the Canon 10-22 and the Tokina 11-16 ... I do a lot of outdoor landscapes when traveling around Utah so I think the flare handling and extra 1mm of reach of the Canon is the important factor for me.

One issue is adding a slim circular polarizer ... I assume this is possible on a UWA lens without vignetting?

Hired Goon said:

One issue is adding a slim circular polarizer ... I assume this is possible on a UWA lens without vignetting?

Click to expand...

I ordered a regular-edged polariser with mine. The 10-22mm I'd used previously wasn't bothered by non-thin filters. Order should be in in a day or two so I'll report back if it is visible in the shot.

Good luck with the decision making!

p-mcdonald said:

I ordered a regular-edged polariser with mine. The 10-22mm I'd used previously wasn't bothered by non-thin filters. Order should be in in a day or two so I'll report back if it is visible in the shot.

Click to expand...

Actually I am now wondering how effective a CP would be on the wide end of the 10-22 lens, at least on sky shots (which is my primary reason for getting a CP). I would think that the polarizing effect would be uneven. Was that your experience?

Hired Goon said:

Actually I am now wondering how effective a CP would be on the wide end of the 10-22 lens, at least on sky shots (which is my primary reason for getting a CP). I would think that the polarizing effect would be uneven. Was that your experience?

Click to expand...

Yeah I'm pretty sure they do (only had ND's and UV filters with the 10-22 I had loaned). I think the polarising effect is effective up to about 90 degrees, but I have seen the effect used quite artistically on some UWA shots. Let you know how it goes in a couple of days, weather permitting!

I ordered the Marumi DHG Super CPL. Apparently you don't need thin filters on a 10-22 unless you're planning on stacking.

( http://www.lenstip.com/115.4-article-Polarizing_filters_test_Results_and_summary.html )

I can only speculate about the 10-22 but at 17mm I have noticed uneven effects from the CPL.

If your shot is mainly sky then it might be more of a problem that if it's foliage or landscape.

Andrew

Hired Goon said:

p-mcdonald said:

I ordered a regular-edged polariser with mine. The 10-22mm I'd used previously wasn't bothered by non-thin filters. Order should be in in a day or two so I'll report back if it is visible in the shot.

Click to expand...

Actually I am now wondering how effective a CP would be on the wide end of the 10-22 lens, at least on sky shots (which is my primary reason for getting a CP). I would think that the polarizing effect would be uneven. Was that your experience?

Click to expand...

--
http://www.andrewfordphoto.com/
http://flickr.com/photos/andrew_ford

add the sigma 8-16





--
http://rahmo.deviantart.com/

Hired Goon said:

Actually I am now wondering how effective a CP would be on the wide end of the 10-22 lens, at least on sky shots (which is my primary reason for getting a CP). I would think that the polarizing effect would be uneven. Was that your experience?

Click to expand...

Just a follow up post.. I've had the Canon 10-22mm for a fortnight now and feel supremely happy with the decision. As I probably would with the Tokina. To be honest I do appreciate that extra mm at the wide and and the reach up to 22mm. I've used both extremes extensively so far.

I've found the CPL does create an uneven banding at 10mm but it's adjustable and can be dialed back no problem. This image is an example of me intentionally using it for effect: http://www.flickr.com/photos/p_mcdonald/6822361341/in/set-72157629182745537/lightbox/ .

On the filter front I have a Marumi Super DHG CPL, Kenko ND400 and a Kenko Pro1D UV filter. None of these produce vingetting at 10mm. A tiny bit begins to creep in at 10mm if I stack two.

Thanks again to everyone for the advice, pricey lens purchases can be a pretty torturous process for us beginners but I feel the journey was worth it. It forced me to look closely at what I used the lens for, and I feel I have a good understanding of it's strengths and weaknesses. UWA's are great fun - everyone should have one!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/p_mcdonald/

p-mcdonald said:

Hello everyone (and happy Australia Day fellow countrypeople),

I've been shooting with a loaned Canon 10-22mm on my 60D for the past 8 months but had to recently return the lens. I'm really missing the UWA so it's high time I invested in my own. I am on a tight budget though, so I'm looking for a lens with the keenest IQ/price tradeoff.

The lenses I'm looking at are, in order of affordability:

• Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6
• Tokina 12-24mm f4
• Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5

I've ruled out the Tokina 11-16 - sounds like top IQ and build but for the money I'd rather the range of the Canon than the f2.8.

The Sigma and Tokina I can get for similar money, allowing me to get a quality lens protector, polariser and maybe an ND for day timelapse. The Canon is about $200AUD extra, meaning I'd just be able to afford a lens protector and no extras.

I have concerns about the Sigma build - I'd really rather not deal with the hassle of returning a bad copy. The Tokina sounds like an excellent performer and the best built of the three but I have shot a lot at 10mm with the loaned Canon, so I'm worried about missing the extra 10 degrees at the wide end. The Canon is a known element to me - it's sharp, it's light, it's versatile - but it is expensive (to me at least) and not having used the other two I have no idea if the extra price is justified. I didn't find the build quality spectacular with one I had loaned either.

To be honest I'm leaning towards the Canon at the moment, but yesterday it was the Tokina and the day before the Sigma! I know what I'm getting with the Canon, and I'm afraid I'll regret saving a few hundred bucks for what I lose in quality or range. I'll use the UWA to shoot a combination of landscape, night timelapse and day/night street.

Anyone willing to tell me outright what they think is best for me? Thanks for reading!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/p_mcdonald/

Click to expand...

I know exactly how you feel!! It took me over a month of asking on DPR looking at reviews online, & looking in shops, till my head was spinning. I eventually plumped for the Sigma A week ago. Am very pleased with it. It is pretty sharp fully open at 10mmbetter at f8. I too was concerned about reported build issues, which is why I bought from a local store instead of online. Mine {on a 600d-t3i} is worth every penny{so far} I did try the Tokina 12-24 & the extra 2mm is worth it. I took a shot of a 80ft tower from about 15 ft away at 10mm & got it all in. {I could have got even closer if I wanted} YOU do get a bit of a "falling backwards" effect, but I quite like that. Its a matter of taste. The lens is excellent, however. lee uk

I owned the tokina 12-24mm - fantastic lens! good quality, well built, it survived a 6 day scotland trip with pouring rain and rolling thunder.

I exchanged it for the canon 10-22mm for the extra 2mm reach. Also a nice one, but to be honest, looking back I think I should have kept the 12-24mm and put the extra money I invested in the Canon towards something else.

I'd leave the sigma out of the equation. I did.

p-mcdonald said:

Hello everyone (and happy Australia Day fellow countrypeople),

I've been shooting with a loaned Canon 10-22mm on my 60D for the past 8 months but had to recently return the lens. I'm really missing the UWA so it's high time I invested in my own. I am on a tight budget though, so I'm looking for a lens with the keenest IQ/price tradeoff.

The lenses I'm looking at are, in order of affordability:

• Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6
• Tokina 12-24mm f4
• Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5

I've ruled out the Tokina 11-16 - sounds like top IQ and build but for the money I'd rather the range of the Canon than the f2.8.

The Sigma and Tokina I can get for similar money, allowing me to get a quality lens protector, polariser and maybe an ND for day timelapse. The Canon is about $200AUD extra, meaning I'd just be able to afford a lens protector and no extras.

I have concerns about the Sigma build - I'd really rather not deal with the hassle of returning a bad copy. The Tokina sounds like an excellent performer and the best built of the three but I have shot a lot at 10mm with the loaned Canon, so I'm worried about missing the extra 10 degrees at the wide end. The Canon is a known element to me - it's sharp, it's light, it's versatile - but it is expensive (to me at least) and not having used the other two I have no idea if the extra price is justified. I didn't find the build quality spectacular with one I had loaned either.

To be honest I'm leaning towards the Canon at the moment, but yesterday it was the Tokina and the day before the Sigma! I know what I'm getting with the Canon, and I'm afraid I'll regret saving a few hundred bucks for what I lose in quality or range. I'll use the UWA to shoot a combination of landscape, night timelapse and day/night street.

Anyone willing to tell me outright what they think is best for me? Thanks for reading!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/p_mcdonald/

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Gravi