Good wide angle choice for 7D that is 'affordable'

<p>I have an EF16-35mm lens that I first used on an EOS 10 film body. I have a 7D now and, as this is a crop body, my once 'ultra' wide zoom is now a lot less wide. I occasionally want to shoot wider than 24mm equivalent on a 35mm body, typically in poor light. So any suggestions on a good quality lens that is near 16mm equivalent on a 35mm body, preferably with f2.8? I have looked at Sigma and Tokina zooms; the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 appearing to be a good choice. But it is not cheap and I think it will only fit a crop body; I would prefer something that will do FF as well (I still shoot film occasionally). I have considered a number of primes but they do not come cheap either. As this is an occasional need lens I would prefer not to spend too much. Affordable, by the way, is as far south of £250 Stirling / $500 Dollars US as possible. I think I am going to struggle somehow.<br>

As an aside, I think the 7D is a superb tool. I love the way you can trigger a slave flash from the integral unit, the system working just brilliantly with my 550EX. I did not think I would ever need it but now find I use it a great deal. I also love the choice of focusing systems, the ability to add or remove grids on the screen, the size of the viefinder, the accurate metering - something I really found to be tricky on the 5D I once owned - and the video and..... Sorry, straying off topic. But boy the 7D is a brilliant piece of kit for both my work and liesure use. If only I could make it go as wide as I sometimes want I don't think I would need a new body in years. (Apart from the organic one responsible for conveying my brain around that is).</p>

<p>Your only excellent option is the EF-S 10-22. All the others third party brands with siminlar range are extremely soft in the corners, have extreme barrel distortion and vignette heavily. Reviews out there have even pointed how the ES-S 10-22 performs better in corner sharpness with 40D+10-22 vs 5D+16-35L. You can get a used one here in the US from 500-600 usd. Spent a little extra on this one, is worth it.</p>

<p>You really aren't going to find an ultrawide for an APS sensor that will work on a FF as well, there is no such thing! Other than some fisheye's, 14 to16mm is about as wide as any FF lens gets. I have always heard good things about the EF-S 10-22, so that may be your only choice in a Canon lens, but also is over budget!</p>

<p>Interweb rumor says that Tokina 11-16/2.8 works on film bodies. Supposedly it vignettes like mad at 11 mm but fills the frame at 16 mm. So, think of it as a zoom for your 7D and a 16 mm prime for your film body.</p>

<p>I don't own this lens so I can't confirm this. But I do have a Tokina 10-17 fish-eye, and I can confirm it works like a 15 mm diagonal fisheye with FF coverage.</p>

<p>I suggest you bring your film body to the store to try it out. Also, ask yourself how much film you'll be shooting now that you've got the 7D.</p>

<p>There are some FF ultrawide options out there. There's Sigma 12-24. Wide, but slow and has a big bulbous front element. You could adapt Nikon 14-24/2.8 but it's insanely expensive. Canon 14/2.8 is expensive too and is hardly ultrawide on crop.</p>

<p>I believe there is a Sigma that is around 12mm to 24mm but I would highly recommend the Canon 10-22 for ultra wide. I also think the Tokina 11-16 will mount on full frame and work at around 16mm</p>

canon 10-22 is excellent. optically on a par with the best. if you're going to stick with crop bodies and need ultra wide, that's the one to get. otherwise, recommend you move to full frame

<p>I also recommend the 10-22, yes it might be a little more out of your price range but worth it</p>

<p>I use the Sigma 12-14mm onboth my 7D and my 5D. It is a very good lens for the price, but it is soft in the corners and it is not the fastest lens out there. There just aren't any FF capable Canon compatible lenses at that focal range, other than the Sigma.</p>

<p>I think Angel is a little hard on the third-party alternatives to the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. The original Sigma 10-20 as well as its constant aperture update (both are still sold) are at the least serious rivals to the Canon lens and certainly are much more affordable. See Photozone.de for tests of both. The Sigma 10-20 will mount and operate on Canon "full-frame" bodies, but will vignette considerably.</p>

<p>You aren't likely to find any f/2.8 lens in this category, and if you could, you couldn't afford it. Also forget working on both APS-C and 35mm unless you are willing to consider the Sigma 12-24mm which will, but it isn't inexpensive, either.</p>

<p>I agree with the others suggesting the EF-S 10-22mm as the only sensible option.<br>

You've spent a considerable amount of cash on a fine camera, so why would you want to compromise that with an inferior lens?</p>

<p>Well said Martin. The 7D is quite demanding with its 18mp, it deserves the best possible optics to really show what it is capable of. I am amazed on how it show more detail than my expensive drum scans with film.</p>

<p><em>Your only excellent option is the EF-S 10-22. All the others third party brands with siminlar range are extremely soft in the corners, have extreme barrel distortion and vignette heavily</em></p>

<p>False and misleading. My Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 is tack sharp, corner to corner. Distortion is minor, and vignetting similar to others. Tokina 11-16/2.8 is reportedly very sharp thanks to the limited range. These lenses do give the Canon a run for the money. All of these are excellent choices.</p>

<p>If your sigma is tack sharp corner to corner, than my ef-s 10-22 is super razor tack sharper. Compare charts at photozone.de. See for yourself. When I went to purchase this lens I went to the camera store to compare for myself with all the other brands. Just the ability to focus faster and quieter made it worth the extra price. For IQ, I really couldn't tell the the difference from comparing on a small LCD from the camera, and chances are that for most casual photogs in real world there will be no real difference either. But with prints from a 7D larger than 16x20, there might be a difference in the corners. I am tempted to rent the sigma and actually print to compare.</p>

<p>I suggest the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8. Better build than the Canon 10-22mm, comparable or slightly better IQ and less expensive, although less focal range. As the last poster suggested, look at the Photozone reviews.</p>

<p>JDM - there is the Tokina 11-16/2.8. I don't own one, but I constantly waffle between the Canon and the Tokina. I loved fixed aperture lenses, but it has a narrow focal length, and despite my fondness for the fixed aperture, I'm not sure that it's necessary for a lens that is typically going to be used for landscape work. </p>

<p>If you bother to look at the reviews available at Photozone and SLRgear you'll find that the picture re 3rd party lenses is not as clear-cut as some would have you believe. On Photozone e.g. Canon's own gets 3* for optical quality and 3,5<+ for mechanical quality. The Tokina 11-16 improves on that with 4* on both counts, while the slower Sigma 110-20mm rates 3* and 4,5* respectively. Both are heavier than the Canon, which was the decisive point for me.<br /></p>

<p>So there appears to be some doubt about the "build" quality of the Canon 10-22 lens! Well it is a lens after all and not a ball used in tennis or baseball. It is a superb lens, it costs, and like vintage wine one respects it and treats it as such. It was not made to be thrown around - so don't do it. What do you all think?<br>

regards myrddin jones</p>

<p>So there appears to be some doubt about the "build" quality of the Canon 10-22 lens! Well it is a lens after all and not a ball used in tennis or baseball. It is a superb lens, it costs, and like vintage wine one respects it and treats it as such. It was not made to be thrown around - so don't do it. What do you all think?<br>

regards myrddin jones</p>

<p>So there appears to be some doubt about the "build" quality of the Canon 10-22 lens! Well it is a lens after all and not a ball used in tennis or baseball. It is a superb lens, it costs, and like vintage wine one respects it and treats it as such. It was not made to be thrown around - so don't do it. What do you all think?<br>

regards myrddin jones</p>

<p>I never did a hands-on comparison, but the Canon really does yield fantastic "professional-looking" results - great contrast and saturation and very good sharpness at most focal lengths. Furthermore it has the best flare resistance and least amount of distortion based on what I found online.</p>

<p>This comparison suggests the sigmas as the "value kings" but that the Canon is the best absolute performer. <a href="http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_10-20_vs_canon_tamron_tokina.htm">http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_10-20_vs_canon_tamron_tokina.htm</a> I have seen plenty of complaints about Sigma's QC, which is enough to dissuade me from their choices since I buy online, but that doesn't mean it should dissuade you as well.</p>

<p>I have no regrets when it comes to buying the Canon.</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/174-canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/307-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-hsm-ex-dc-lab-test-report--review<br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon</p>

<p>Let's pick 10 mm (11 mm in case of the Tokina) and f/5.6, shall we?<br>

Center. Canon: 2011 lp/pw Sigma: 2089 lp/pw Tokina 2080 lp/pw<br>

Corner. Canon 1576 lp/pw Sigma: 1702 lp/pw Tokina 1862 lp/pw<br>

On paper the Canon is the loser. In practice they're all sharp.</p>

<p><em>I never did a hands-on comparison, but the Canon really does yield fantastic "professional-looking" results - great contrast and saturation</em><br>

Now here's the real difference. My Sigma may be sharp but it lacks pop and has a yellow tinge. Nothing that can't be fixed in post, but still. I haven't shot the Tokina 11-16, but my other tokinas have very neutral somewhat desaturated color. Canons have nice color.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I can't tell you about Tokina's or Sigma's I have a 40D and the EFS10-22 and every time I use it I'm glad I have it. It is very fast, totaly silent, I love the colors contrast and sharpness of it. I did try the Tokina at the store when I got the Canon and (my opinion) I did not like the feeling of it, it was noisier and and slower than Canon. Quality I can't say how it compares, but if I had to replace that lens chances are I would buy the same without researching other brands. Besides you can sell that lens overnight if you have to.<br>

good luck</p>

<p>Arie beat me to the punch. Angel's comments are misleading.</p>

<p>The Tokina 11-16 will be my choice as soon as I have the money (and someone has it in stock). My neighbor has one that I've been able to borrow a few times and it is an excellent lens. The only weak spot is the CA, but that can be fixed fairly easily in ACR.</p>

<p>I wouldn't bother trying to find something that does FF as well if you're keeping your 16-35.</p>

<p>Tokina 11-16 works past 15mm on my EOS Elan 2 body. Works wonderfully on my XTi normally.<br>

Enjoy.</p>

<p>First many thanks for all your responses; I am in the UK so I apologise for not responding sooner. My reluctance to go for an 'EFS' lens is that they are restricted in their future use - unless Canon does a Nikon. The suggestion of going full frame is one I considered before opting for a 7D over the 5D MkII. For my needs, the 7D is a better choice, its wide angle restriction proving to be its only downside (for me). Hence the original question. I will take a long hard look at the Canon 10-22. I have a lovely 70-300mm IS that I could part with to help fund the purchase too. So thanks to you all. </p>