Super Wide-Angle Lenses

<p>What is, in your opinion, the best option for a wide angle lens?</p>

<p>Canon EF-S 10-22mm<br>

Tamron Di-II 10-24mm<br>

Sigma DC 10-20mm</p>

<p>If Canon's your first option, what would be the second one?</p>

<p>Canon the first and Sigma second, with Tamron a well distant last. Have a look at www.photozone.de for reviews of all of these. Note also that there are two Sigma 10-20mm lenses, one variable f/4-5.6 and one constant f/3.5. The former one is probably a better value-for-money proposition, but your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>You can also add the Tokina 11-18mm f/2.8 lens to your list, somewhere in front, neck in neck with the Canon.</p>

 

What Daniel said.... Except it's neck *and* neck ;-)

<p>Can't compare the 3 but I recently got the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 which I am very happy with (the first 3rd party lens I've purchased) and it does come with a hood and a case which the Canon one doesn't. The only downside is the 82mm filter size which is expensive when it comes to polarising filters.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Can't compare the 3 but I recently got the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 which I am very happy with (the first 3rd party lens I've purchased) and it does come with a hood and a case which the Canon one doesn't. The only downside is the 82mm filter size which is expensive when it comes to polarising filters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look into a filter system like Cokin. You only need adapters to fit the different lenses.</p>

 

 

<p>Tokina 11-16mm f2.8<br>

I loved my Sigma 10-20 (f4-5.6 version) but the extra speed and quality of the Tokina 11-16mm made it a worthwhile upgrade for me.</p>

<p>As said, compare the Photozone.de reviews.</p>

<p>I have the older Sigma 10-20 and am pleased with it.</p>

<p>stitch, with whatever you have. if you have the ability and time too. once you do you will never go back. the quality is so much better. i stitch with a 90mm or 50mm. i have a few shots wider than a 15mm.</p>

<p>My choice is the excellent Tokina 11-16mm 2.8.</p>

<p>Erwin, I would go to websites that have reliable testing that was carried out under controlled, repeatable conditions, like Photozone.de and the-digital-picture.com (which allow you to compare lenses side by side), etc. Choosing between the wide variety of available SWA lenses is in reality a very complex analytical question given the options, and while there is some value in anecdotal feedback from users here, I don't think it's nearly as useful as reliable testing of the actual lenses.</p>

<p>And while Brett's right about facts being facts ... there is one vital piece of anecdotal info missing from this thread:<br /><br />Erwin: how do you intend to use the lens?</p>

<p>I've had good success stitching, but it's not for every situation.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 10-24 and don't recommend it. I bought it because the price was right and I don't use UWA all that much. I've gotten some nice shots but the distortions are severe and flare is a problem. I think you'd be happy with any of the other choices mentioned above.</p>

<p>Be sure to check out the new Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6</p>

<p>Another vote for Tokina, though the Canon or Sigma would be fine if you don't think you need f2.8.</p>

<p>Love the Tokina, though it can be very hard to find. The Canon has gotten great reviews, but the build and the aperture of the Tokina are hard to beat (and it costs less than the Canon).</p>

<p>I'll mostly use it for video purpose. Sure, a landscape shot every now and then, but 90% of the time will be video.</p>

<p>I've owned Sigma and Tamron before, but never Tokina... Is it really so reliable?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone!</p>

<p>This is only my second Tokina lens... My first was a zoom for a Nikon mount SLR in my film days over 10 years ago. I've never had a problem with the reliability of the other - nor have I read about issues with reliability of the lens. It's built like a tank and feels very solid. The rings glide like an L lens. The quality is better than my 17-55 and just about on par with my 35L. Truthfully, I haven't had it long enough to comment on long term reliability, but I haven't heard similar scary stories to those of the Sigma owners.</p>

<p>I don't think that there are all that many "scary stories" from actual Sigma owners, but there are lots of people who repeat "scary stories" they have heard.</p>

<p>Sigma did have a problem a long time ago with their reverse engineering of the EOS mount. Think about it. I wonder who it was who changed the EOS mount to specifically kill Sigma lenses? -- you know, it wasn't Sigma.</p>

<p>I have had Sigma lenses back into the MF days, and they are OK. Probably overall, I prefer Canon, but Sigma is not so bad.</p>

<p>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_10-22_review.html<br>

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_11_18_review.html<br>

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tokina_12-24_f4_review.html<br>

Those might help. (I'm not trying to brown nose bob, those were literally what I was looking at when I was shopping, then I found a link that took me here, I liked it and I subscribed)<br>

This website talked me into the 10-22 spending almost twice the money, my wife then allowed me to get a FF at the end of the year, so I went 17-40 in the end (17mm is more than wide enough for many applications for me) I would suggest bringing your camera into a store to see what you might be missing in those focal ranges, at that range, 1mm makes a difference so allow yourself to try before you buy! </p>

<p>Vote for Tokina 11-16, cannot go wrong, period.</p>

<p>Sigma 8-16 mm.</p>

<p>The Tokina 11-16 is a superb, ultra wide angle for any APS camera. Nice build too.</p><div></div>

<p>I got the sigma 8-16 a few weeks ago and have been shooting it alot. I love it and think the extra wideness is great. I am not really a tweaker so I can't comment on the IQ, but for me being able to get that little bit closer makes all the difference.</p>

<p>I have used the 10-22 EF-S from canon on my 7D body for about a month and I think its a great lens. Not really sharp or fast at its ends. but when stopped down at f8 the results where sharp enough for me. Check it out:<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=947278">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=947278</a><br /><br /></p>