Tokina 11-16, 12-24 or Canon 10-22?

<p>Hello!<br>

I am going on holiday to Turkey in the Autumn and would like to rent one of the 3 lenses mentioned, possibly with a view to then buying one. Problem is - which one! I understand the Tokinas are very good, but have CA problems. Is this a real pain in the bum? The Canon is supposed to be fantastic, but I Photozone didn't rate it as highly compared to the Tokes. <br>

There is also a Sigma 8-16 that is supposed to be good.<br>

Any recommendations, experiences bad or good? <br>

I have a Rebel XTi, so will be working with that for the forseeable future, although I am saving up for a 50D!</p>

<p>I have the Tokina 11-16mm for Nikon, and like it very much for my purposes, but its very limited focal length range isn't for everyone. Are you taking a tripod with you? Then you don't need the f/2.8 speed of the 11-16mm. You're not taking a tripod? Then whatever small advantage in sharpness Photozone might have found for the Tokinas won't make any difference.</p>

<p>Hi! I will take my Gorillapod, so may have tripod capability to an extent - not ideal but can't take a tripod around everywhere as also have 2 small children, both of whom like to be carried regularly ; )<br>

The f2.8 would indeed be handy! I was wondering about the narrow range of this lens; the ability to go above 20mm from a decent super-wide setting does appeal, I must admit.</p>

<p>The CA issues aren't that big. It's fairly easy to correct CA in most programs (especially many RAW editors have built-in facilities to get rid of it). I have the Tokina 12-24 (nikon mount, though), and I never found the CA all that objectionable.<br>

In my view, you are right to think going beyond 20mm has appeal. I can imagine using the 12-24 (or a 10-22) pretty much all day without too much problems. With a 11-16 or 8-16, no way; I'd be switching lenses frequently. So, it's indeed a good thing to consider.<br>

From all I've read on forums, the Canon 10-22 owners are a happy bunch; it looks to be a very solid choice. If you want to go really quite wide, to me this lens has the most appeal because of the 10mm. Else, well, I can recommend the Tokina 12-24 without reservations. Built to last, sharp, and a very useful range (but I do not crave the extreme ultra-wide, so 12mm is OK for me).</p>

<p>I just got the Sigma 8-16 and it is great fun, but it really challenges compositional skill as it is so wide that even a close subject can be lost in the frame. I too looked at the others and as Photoshop has auto lens corrections, there was not much to choose. I felt that for the ultimate wide angle that the 10mm wide was not quite enough as 8mm was available. I shot some tests in the store and the difference between 8mm and 10mm is marked.<br>

I agree that I do need to change lenses often, but that's why I use a DSLR. If I had an issue with changing lenses, I'd get a superzoom or bridge camera.</p>

If you are renting to test for purchase, why don't you try all of them and see for yourself? The rental fees are relatively

minor when compared with the benefit of purchasing with the confidence of knowing what works best for you.

 

ME

<p>Hi! The only problem with renting all of them is that it would cost me about £150GBP (plus VAT) for a whole week, which is the period of time I would need them for. I have a friend who has just purchased the 10-22 (found out today!) so I will ask him if I can borrow it for a day or two, just leaving the Tokinas to play with. <br>

I think the 8-16 would probably be outside the range I am looking for, so may well leave that out of the running for now.<br>

Thanks for all the responses so far!</p>

<p>Actually, what's the Sigma 10-20 like?</p>

<p>There are two versions of the Sigma 10-20mm.</p>

<p>I have the older one and have found it an excellent lens. So much so, that when I added a 5D, my first purchase after the 24-105mm was a Sigma 15-30mm.</p>

<p>Look at the tests of all of these on <a href="http://www.photozone.de/all-tests">Photozone.de</a> for some fairly objective information on the variables, including CA.</p>

<p>I have the Canon 10-22 and I absolutely love it. I'm sure the Tokinas and Sigmas are fine lenses, but in my opinion, I don't see how they could possibly be any better than the Canon.</p>

<p>XTi with Sigma 10-20 in Turkey:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.arievandervelden.com/Lycea/4023TermessosTheatre2.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="525" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.arievandervelden.com/SelcukIstanbul/4416HagiaSophia.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></p>

<p>These print well enlarged.</p>

<p>Barnaby,<br>

Got it!<br>

Well, I'm sure all these lenses are very very good. I would think they would all be very sharp and contrasty when used in typical well-lit landscape shooting. I've had the Tokina 12-24mm for the past year. The lens was co-designed with Pentax, and I used the Pentax version for a few years prior with great satisfaction. The Tokina version is extremely well built. Today I would strongly consider the 11-16mm because of the f2.8, but they are different lenses. The 11-16mm is closer in function to a prime lens as the delta to 24mm is very significant.</p>

<p>At least in the US, the Tokina 12-24mm is a real bargain on the used market running around $325 US. The 11-16mm however, is in greater demand and I see used prices at around $625 US.</p>

<p>Here are a couple of recent examples taken with the 7D and the Tokina 12-24mm.</p>

<p><strong>Wenas Valley from Black Canyon, Central Washington</strong><br>

<img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-xBfmjsM/0/L/i-xBfmjsM-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

@ 18mm, f8 @ 1/10, ISO 400</p>

<p><strong>Grass Field, Central Washington</strong></p>

<p><img src="http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-hVnMjFq/0/L/i-hVnMjFq-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

@13mm, f9.5 @ 1/180, ISO 200</p>

<p>ME</p>

 

<p>I like my Tokina 11-16. It is better to think of it as a prime with wiggle room than a zoom lens, but an 11mm f2.8 of this quality would be worth it.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/13941192-lg.jpg" alt="" width="444" height="650" /></p>

<p>I would go with Tokina's 11-16.</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC, and it is a wonderful lens. I too try to stick to Canon, but they really out priced themselves. I was able to pick mine up for less than 400 a year ago. <br>

I find nothing objectionable in this lens, but I don't really pixel peep either. I have used it in Death Valley with no problems, and my brother is using it all across the USA, and has had no issues with it, just great pics.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. The one thing that appeals about the Tokina is the speed of the lens, but the Sigma does look really cool. Ultimately, when I come to buy I think the Sigma may well stand a good chance! Either way, all of these are going to seem infinitely wider than my 18-55.</p>