Ultra wide lenses - Tokina 12-24, Canon 10-22

I need an ultra wide lens to complement a Canon 24-105 on a 40D. I assume most or all of these

ultra wide lenses work only on a 1.6 crop body?

 

What is a good lens to get in this range? At first I was thinking a 17-40 since it will work on a FF

body but it seems like a lot of overlap so now I am thinking I would be better in the 10-24 range. I

hear the Tokina 12-24 is very good.

 

Thanks

Also look at the Sigma 10-20 HSM. On a 1.6x crop, that extra 2mm really counts.

I'm really impressed with my Sigma 10-20. Great piece of kit.

I had the same dilemma earlier in the year and ended up getting the Canon over the Sigma and Tokina lenses.

 

My reason for this at the time was because I never went third party first of all at that point and second, I did not want the issue with high CA's of the Tokina even if the build was the best of all UWA's for cropped bodies.

 

With that being said however, I did not find the Canon to be worth the extra cash over the Sigma! It may be worth it compared to the Tokina as you get the extra 2mm on the wide end which doesn't seem like much but it truly is!

 

I ended up selling my Canon because I was not completely thrilled with it and I plan to replace it with a Sigma 10-20mm.

 

If money is of no concern, go ahead and get the Canon but I doubt you will notice much of a difference between the Canon and Sigma lenses. The Tokina I wouldn't even consider now as I figure if you want WIDE, go for the 10mm not the 12mm.

 

And I have NEVER considered third party lenses but after using quite a few Canon's (L included) and comparing them to those of a friend of mine who is a professional photographer and shoots with both Nikon and Sigma lenses (Nikon shooter obviously) ... I can say that there are some Sigma lenses that are top notch!

 

You should look at the Sigma and give it consideration as well! Good luck.

I have the 12-24mm Tokina f/4 ATX lens and I love it. The images from this lens seem to have a wonderful three dimensional quality that only certain lenses produce for me.

 

I didn't consider the Sigma because of the reverse engineering practice of Sigma when producing EOS mount lenses. When Canon introduces a new camera, the Sigma lenses in existence may not work with it. Sigma will rechip any lens that they presently supply free to work with the newer camera. However, if Sigma replaces the lens with a new model; they will not or cannot upgrade the lens to work with new Canon cameras. I have a very good Sigma 28mm f/1.8 lens which will not work with any Canon camera newer than the 10D. This lens has been replaced in the Sigma inventory with a newer model and I can't upgrade the lens. The old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice; shame on me!" I have decided not to be fooled by Sigma a second time.

 

Both the Canon 10-22mm and the Tokina are great lenses. I have not read any complaints by owners of either lens. The Tokina costs 2/3 the price of the Canon if you consider that Canon doesn't supply a lens hood with the 10-22mm but, Tokina does. However, I don't consider the Tokina a great lens for its price, simply a great lens period!

 

Although I did not buy the Tokina based upon price, I don't know which lens I would pick if the Canon was 2/3 the cost of the Tokina instead of the other way around.

 

I don't miss the 2mm at the wide side and I do like the extra 2mm at the long side because I can shoot people without getting the ultra-wide distortion. However, since I am not really a fan of UW lenses, that is simply my opinion based on my shooting style.

 

Roman Johnson has a galleries of absolutely wonderful images. Many of these images were shot with the 12-24mm Tokina on a Nikon body. They partly influenced my decision to go the Tokina route.

 

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos

I am looking at this as a patch until I go to a full frame so i would prefer to keep it as

in-expensive as possible. Is there any ultra wide ( I don't need it to go to 10 ) that is

somewhat affordable?

Tokina's ultra wides (12-24 and 11-16) will both work on full frame bodies as well as crop cameras. The 12-24 vignettes at under 19mm, and the 11-16 can only be used at 15/16mm for the same reason on full frame.

Interesting, that would seem to make buying a tokina a better choice then the 10-22

EF-S since a. it cost more and b. it wont work on ff.

I have the Sigma 10-20 and I love it. It takes pretty good pictures. We all know its the photographer not the lens that takes great pictures, but good glass helps :)

I've had the Tokina for three years. Excellent sharpness even wide open, and excellent build (although it zooms and focuses "backwards" compared to Canon lenses). Chromatic aberration (purple fringing of high contrast areas, particularly in corners) is a problem if you shoot JPEG or use DPP, but it's easily taken care of in Adobe Camera Raw.

Here is a link to pictures I took on my Grand Canyon trip.<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/zafar1/sets/72157603362765168/"> Grand Canyon </a>

<br>

All landscape pictures are taken with Tokina 12-24 with Nikon D70s. It is a great lens. I had tested Sigma 10-22 before earlier also, but I preferred Tokina in terms of IQ (subjective evaluation only).

Like Matt and others above, I say that you should consider the Sigma 10-20mm. The extra 2mm actually do make a difference at this end of the scale. The Sigma will mount on most full-frame Canon EOS cameras, but with vignetting. At PixelPeeper there are shots taken with the Sigma on a Canon 5D.

How do these ( the sigma, tokina ) compare to a 17-40 on a ff body?

I bought the Tokina over a year ago. I chose it based on a bunch of research - looking at getting a quality lens for a decent price. I really like the lens in all respects.

 

I bought 'normal' a Tiffen Circular Polarizer, and it vignetted at 12mm. I just recently purchased a B+W slim one from BH - no more dark corners. Keep this in mind! The B+W is the basic model - but was one of the lowest priced ones - coming in around $110 for 77mm. (It comes with a slip on cap as well).

Oh yah - I mainly use it for Real Estate photography.

The Sigma 12-24 and 15-30 will work correctly on full frame bodies. The Canon 17-40 would also do the job. Tamron and Sigma both make 17-35s plus there is an older Canon L 17-35. Don't buy "just a patch" for a crop body and then have to dispose of it (usually at a loss) when you move up to full frame.

I guess I really don't need to be ultra wide, just need something thats wider then 24 (

38mm on 40D ) I like the idea of a 17-40 because 1 its actual Canon and 2 its L

class. 3. it will work great on a FF.

 

I generally stay away from off brand, I just prefer the color I get with Canon lenses.

So with that being said is 17-40 going to be wide enough option? I really don't shoot

wide angle very often I just want and need the option.

 

Thank for the responses.

If you want to know, buy or borrow a second hand 18-55 kit lens to get a feel for the angle of view offered by the 17-40 on a crop body. I think I'd describe the performance of the 17-40 on full frame as "quite good" rather than stellar - you can expect some mushy corners. However, 17 is really pretty wide on full frame - enough to give a 94 degree horizontal angle of view, i.e. take in all four walls of a room when shooting from a corner.

On Popflash.Photo there is a Tokina 12-24 listeds used for I believe $250..You can post process most if not all CA out..The build is solid and read some of the reviews on Amazon.com for the Tokina vs the Nikon 12-24..imagine there are similar reviews on Canon there as well.. I'm happy with mine..I paid $400 used and feel it was money well spent.

CA on the Tokina 12-24 isn't so bad as people seem to be saying in this thread. I like & use mine a lot, and rarely notice it. Easy to fix anyway.

 

But I would get the Canon. The difference between 10 & 12mm is significant, the focus is faster, and it allows FTM (full time manual) focusing too.

 

I'm not buying another Sigma. Too many issues with incorrect focus, broken focus motors, and incompatibilities with newer cameras.

OP says:

 

1. I need an ultra wide lens to complement a Canon 24-105 on a 40D.

 

2. I guess I really don't need to be ultra wide,

 

I guess he's entitled to change his mind.

To Mark U : you said 17-40L on FF is rather quite good than stellar, but im curious how is it compared to a tokina 12-24 or sigma 10-22 on a 40D ? on the other hand, is there an UWA lens for FF body that gives "stellar" image quality?

Ken, I did not change my mind. I need something wider then 24mm not necessarily

ultra wide making the 17-40 an option. Has anyone used the Tokina 11-16? Also is

that Popflash.Photo site reputable?

I went with the Canon 10-22 EFS for my 40D. No regrets. It is impressively well built.