Canon EF-S 10-22 vs Tamron 11-18 XR Di-II, which would you choose?

Ok here are my questions on this topic:

 

I have a Canon 20D DSLR.

 

I am kind of looking at either of these 2 wide angle lenses to enhance my lens

set that I currently have. Basically I am looking for something that will

give me a great wide angle on my 1.6x multiplier.

 

And looking for arguments that will help me decide between the 2 lenses. I

believe there is about $100 diff between the 2. (Canon being the more

expensive one).

 

In advance thanks for all your help and great input.

Have you ruled out the Tokina 12-24mm and Sigma 10-20mm?

 

Among them, the Canon is reported to have the lowest distortion, with the Tokina having the best build. On an EF-S compatible camera I'd probably choose the Canon, on my 10D (which doesn't accpet EF-S lenses) it'd be a more difficult choice between the third party zooms.

Tokina 12-24, or Canon 10-22.

 

The Sigma 10-20 and Tamron 11-18 are optically good lenses too, but not built as well, and I see no advantage to them over the Tokina and Canon offerings. The Canon is wider and has USM & FTM. The Tokina is a constant f/4 design and costs less. Those are the options.

 

I picked the Tokina to save a couple hundred bucks, and while I'm far from disappointed with it, now I would rather have the wider view of the Canon.

Canon. Why not? It's faster and has a wider zoom range on both ends.

I've used and <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/index.html">reviewed</a> both lenses. There's nothing at all wrong with the Tamron if you want to save money, but if the price isn't too important I really can't see a reason not to get the Canon.

I have to say that I recently bought the Sigma lens to go with my 20D and I really really like it.

 

I thought the build quality was very good and although it is slower than the Canon I didn't really think I would miss the extra speed on a lens of this focal range.

 

I have found the image quality to be superb and would recommend this lens to anyone.

 

The Canon sells for around ?500 here in the UK and I got the Sigma for ?287. I have no regrets about saving the money and don't feel I missed out at all.

 

Willie

Hmmm the ? signs should be indicators of pounds sterling but the site doesn't know about them.

 

Willie

The EFS 10-22mm was an incredible lens for me on my 20D. Can't recommend it enough.

 

ALF

My brother has a 20D and had a D60 backup so he bought the Tokina 12-24 because it fits on both. Recently he sold the D60 and bought a 5D so the 20D is now his backup. He really didn't expect the Tokina 12-24 to be usable on the 5D but he was shocked at how good it is even out at the corners by f/5.6 on the full frame 5D (though it's basically a 19-24mm because wider than 19mm the corners are cut off). In fact he abandoned plans to get any other lens in the 20-24 range for the 5D.

I believe the distortion winner is the so far unmentioned Sigma 12-24, which also is a full frame lens at all focal lengths. However, if full frame coverage doesn't matter and you are content to handle distortion in post processing (remembering that it is all too easy to add a large dose of perspective distortion to lens distortion unless you are very careful about how you line up your shots), then the budget choice is the Sigma 10-20, with the Tokina having the advantage of being useable on full frame above 18mm, but the Canon possibly having the best image quality overall, although there is little to choose between the Tokina and Canon other than the extra 2mm at the wide end. Unfortunately, although being quite a reasonable performer, the Tamron doesn't quite win out in the price/performance stakes.

some elements of respeonse i have collected before making my own coice, if it can help... (i choose the Canon, happy with it)

 

here the link :

 

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/wide_angles_for_apsc_english_version

I tested both in store and went with the Canon for my 30d. I love it and the PQ is excellent. Comparable to my L lens.

See I knew why I should post here:)

 

forgot to look at the Sigma and Tokina lenses.

 

Although it just made my choice even harder.

 

For an Amateur photographer (who is at ease with photoshop) but still learning and trying to get more into photography... do any of the difference between these 4 lenses really make a great difference? Which would be the best from "ease-of-use", affordability and best results?

 

thanks again for all the great help:)

You might check the resale value of the two. I found when I sold my Canon 10-22 that I got back a pretty big percentage of what I paid for it so cost of ownership was low. My feeling is that third party lenses devalue a bit more quickly so in the long run it is cheaper to buy the Canon. (And it was my favourite lens on my 300D)

<I>"...do any of the difference between these 4 lenses really make a great difference?"</I>

<P>

Not really. They are all quite good. I think the Sigma is a little less money than the Tokina, but I think the Tokina is a little more lens, although not as wide. As Colin notes, the Canon lens will probably hold its resale value better, but I never buy a lens with the intent of selling it. But I should since I have sold lenses I thought I would never part with.

Resell value of Canon 10-22 is very good NOW and may not be in the future.

 

I have been thinking getting one and worrying that one day (in two years?) Canon may stop making ?cropped? bodies. If so, when my 20D and many other similar ones reach retirement (in 3-4 years?), eBay will be flooded with these EF-S lenses with value less than $100. Of cause, one may look it another way: it only costs about $2 quarters/day, less than cost of a cup of coffee!

 

Go get the Canon as I'll do.

I'd go for the Sigma 12-24 since it is good for full frame too!

I have the 11-18 Tamron on my 20D. It is a good lens, but for the difference I would get the Canon. I ended up with the Tamron for the instant gratification factor, my local camera shop had it. It is not a bad lens and quite small and light, but I am going to sell it and get the Canon 10-22. Aperture, focal length, and resolution are my reasons for going with the Canon 10-22.

I've been using the canon 10-22 for close to two years. <P>

 

It's on my camera 99.9% of the time

and currently the only lens used in <a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/">my street

photography.

</a>

<b>I'd go for the Sigma 12-24 since it is good for full frame too!</b></p>The Sigma is much larger and heavier than the Tokina 12-24, slower (4.5-5.6 vs 4), and has a bulbous front element that can't be filtered. Sigma also has had a habit of running afoul of maintaining compatibility with future Canon bodies and their ability or willingness to re-chip them has its limits. Only if I were definitely planning to get a 5D would I consider the Sigma ahead of the Tokina. The Tokina works fine from 19mm up on the 5D, how many people have a true need for anything wider than that?

I bought the Tamron after reading various comparisons between the four lenses mentioned so far. For me, price and size were the kicker. I was able to pick up a near mint used Tamron for $325. I have run around 600 exposures with it in recent travel to northern California and the Everglades.

 

Yes, it does have its weaknesses. Wide open it can be very soft in the corners. The focus ring is overly wide and it seems like I am always running into it when I am autofocusing. The extra width at the bottom and wider range of the Canon would be a major plus for that lense.

 

The good parts:

Clean and crisp 2 stops up from wide open. Very clean at f8.

 

Deep field of view. I think this is standard on all of the ultrawides. I don't need a tripod or my pocket digicam for depth.

 

Very light. Some see this as a deficit. However, I travel a lot on business and can carry it, a mid range and a telephoto and my 30D without breaking my back.

 

Good color rendition. I am pleased with the overall color from this lens. It isn't quite at the level of my 70-200 f4 L but gives good output.

 

If I had unlimited money and a porter I would go with the Canon. But for my purposes, this lens works well. I'd be happy to email some sample images if you send me a message.<div></div>

I have owned the sigma 12-24 and the sigma 10-20. The 12-24 has a slightly better build but is bigger and heavier and does not take front filters easily. The colour is good, but it is not as sharp as the sigma 10-20, which is pretty much as good as any zoom lens I have used. The sigma 10-20 is quite flair resistant for a wide angle zoom. the HSM is nice and has a very good build.

 

If money were not an issue I would go for the Canon 10-22 as no one seems to dispute its quality. Canon's USM is the best, it has the best range and it is the fastest lens in its class. That said the Sigma 10-20 build quality is a little better than the best grade of Canons (excluding Ls of course).