Which Ultra Wide Angle Lens?

[matthew_burnett]

<p>I've been researching which ultra wide angle lens I should purchase from the following:</p>

<h4 >Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ($700)</h4>

<p>Focal Length & Max Aperture: 10-22mm; 1:3.5-4.5<br>

Lens Construction: 13 elements in 10 groups<br>

Diagonal Angle of View: 107° 30' - 63° 30'<br>

Focus Adjustment: Inner focusing system with focusing cam<br>

Closest Focusing Distance: 0.24m / 0.79 ft.<br>

Zoom System: Ring USM<br>

Weight: 385g</p>

<p><strong>Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ATX Pro DX ($600)</strong> <br>

Focal Length: 11-16mm<br>

Max. & Min. Aperture: f/2.8 - f/22<br>

Lens Construction: 13 elements in 11 groups<br>

Angle of View: 104°~82°<br>

Focusing Mode: Internal Focusing<br>

Closest Focusing Distance: 0.3m<br>

Zoom Mode: Rotary Zoom<br>

No. Aperture blades: 9<br>

Weight: 560g</p>

 

<h4>Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM ($480)</h4>

<p>Focal Length: 10-20mm<br>

Max. & Min. Aperture: f/4 - f/22<br>

Lens Construction: 14 Elements in 10 Groups<br>

Angle of View: 102.4 - 63.8 degrees<br>

Closest Focusing Distance: 0.24m<br>

No. Aperture Blades: 6<br>

Weight: 465g</p>

<h4><br /></h4>

<h4>Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens ($480)</h4>

<p>Focal Length: 10-24mm<br>

Max. Aperture: f/3.5<br>

Lens Construction: 12 Elements in 9 Groups<br>

Angle of View:</p>

<table id="tableSpecs" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>Diagonal</td>

<td>108°44'-60°20'</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Horizontal</td>

<td>98°28'-51°36'</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Vertical</td>

<td>75°19'-35°29'</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Closest Focusing Distance: 0.24m<br>

No. Aperture Blades: 7<br>

Weight: 406g</p>

<p>I've read positive reviews of the Canon and Tokina, and I really like the idea of having a faster lens with the Tokina's f/2.8 aperture. I currently have the Canon 18-55mm so I wouldn't be missing out in much focal length by going with the Tokina as well. Of course, is it worth paying $600 or $700 for the Canon & Tokina over $480 for the Sigma or Tamron? Any information & opinions of any of these lenses would be greatly appreciated.<br /> Thanks!<br /> Matt</p>

 

[thomasmckown]

<p>I used to own the Canon 10-22 and sold it when i got a 5D and 17-40L. My copy of the 10-22 lens was very sharp, very comparable to the 17-40L (which is actually sharper than the Canon 16-35L). Id obviously recommend the Canon since the quality is top notch and it is very sharp, but if you are on a budget, go with whatever you can afford. The bigger aperture to me wasnt as big of a deal as sharpness was since I mostly shoot landscapes on a tripod. The only wide angle lens with a wide aperture I needed was my Sigma 20mm f1.8 for stars and the night sky. Of course, if you really need that wide aperture, buy what serves your needs best.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>The Tokina 11-16 2.8 is outstanding. The combination of great IQ, a very solid build and 2.8 is hard to beat. I'm surprised that its priced its less than the Canon 10-22mm?</p>

[matthew_burnett]

<p>Yeah, those are the current prices on B&H. Although the Tokina is on backorder right now.</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>I owned the EFS 10-22 and was very pleased with it. If I would go back to crop 1.6 I would buy it again.</p>

[Alex]

<p>I can only speak about the canon since I have not use the other onws. The lens is extremely quiet and it focus fast and precisely. In low light it's fairly good as well finding something to focus rather fast. I'm extremely happy with the sharpness of it.<br>

Here is a picture I took tonight. I would buy it again.<br>

Regards,<br>

Alex</p>

[Alex]

<p>I can only speak about the canon since I have not use the other onws. The lens is extremely quiet and it focus fast and precisely. In low light it's fairly good as well finding something to focus rather fast. I'm extremely happy with the sharpness of it.<br>

Here is a picture I took tonight. I would buy it again.<br>

Regards,<br>

Alex</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>I can only really vouch for the Sigma 10-20mm.<br>

It performed very well on my EOS 400D, I have replaced it with a 17-40, not because of any dislike for or problem with the sigma, purely because the Sigma is a DC lens and would vignette on my full frame EOS 3, and the 5D or 5DMk2 I hope to get someday.<br>

You do not mention, so I will assume you are using a cropped sensor body such as a rebel or 40d/50D etc. None of the lenses you mention will work properly on a full-frame body should you ever decide to go that route in the future.<br>

As such another option may be to consider the Sigma 12-24 DG which will mount and cover the image area on a full frame film or digital SLR.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>I use the 10-22 EFS wide angle on my 50D and XSi. It's very sharp, light, and compact. Certainly not "L" quality build, but does a great job with IQ.</p>

<p>(That's a great shot, Alex!)</p>

[fmueller]

<p>There really isn't anything not to like about the Canon 10-22 other than that it's the most expensive lens of the lot, but then it's not that much more expensive.<br>

The difference between F 2.8 and 3.5-4.5 can be quite important in a tele lens, because it determines how well you can separate a scene from its background by use of selective DOF. In a wide angle lens its insignificant in my opinion.</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>I've rented the Sigma, but decided to buy the Tokina, the Sigma was okay but wanted to be able to go to f2.8 if I needed to as I shoot mostly handheld. Didn't feel I needed the full range that the Canon offers. No regrets on buying the Tokina, solid lens, great image quality with very little distortion. If you think you'll use it only for landscapes and such, it probably isn't a big deal to have f2.8.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>I had a lot of difficulty deciding between that Canon and the Tokina myself. I eventually got the Canon just because I could actually find it (i.e. it wasn't backordered). Here were my thoughts:</p>

<p>1. Usefulness - the Canon wins. Much greater zoom range (the Tokina is practically a "flexible prime"), better macro magnification, full-time manual USM is marginally nicer than the Tokina's admittedly fun clutch focus, and most importantly 10mm is, surprisingly, noticeably wider than 11mm (when you get this wide, every mm counts). The Tokina has faster aperture, but at super-wide angles that's not so important; you can handhold the Canon at 1/15th or so and get sharp pictures. So the fast aperture is really only for greater blur (but still barely any) and lower-light (which could be good). The Tokina can also be mounted on 1.3 bodies if you're careful and only use the longer end of its range.</p>

<p>2. Image quality - difficult to say. The Canon wins on distortion and chromatic aberration. Then again, both of those are correctable in post production. The Tokina is sharper, especially in the edges, but the Canon isn't bad. The Canon has rounded aperture blades, which is better for smooth bokeh, but it's very hard to get much blur in the first place at the widest angles; the Tokina has 9 blades, which makes for <em>spectacular</em> sunstars. I don't remember which is better for vignetting, but I don't mind vignetting that much. The Tokina may win this round, although it does have strong barrel distortion and very strong chromatic aberration.</p>

<p>3. Build quality / value - both are fairly good value and good build quality. The Tokina feels <em>g</em><em>reat, </em>super smooth and luxuriously built, but is quite a bit heavier. The Canon is definitely good enough, so the Tokina's build quality is not really important to me, not when it adds that much more weight to an already-heavy camera bag. More disturbing is the apparent lack of quality control; judging purely from online discussion (not very valid statistically), many people seem to have problems with bad copies of the Tokina.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I've been enjoying using the Canon and getting some good photos. Once I buy a lens, I try not to stress about whether its the right choice; as long as I don't feel limited while using it, my time is better spent practicing photography than worrying about equipment.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I don't shoot crop bodies so I have never used these lenses but a freind said the Tokina is awesome so you may want to test it. He also said that it is like using a prime as it's zoom range is so short.</p>

[matthew_burnett]

<p>Thanks everyone. Really appreciate all the info.</p>

[phamtan]

<p>I'm having same question with you, Matthew. for true, it's so hard to pick up 1 of those ultra-wide lenses.<br>

Hi Thomas McKown: I've tried the same 5D + 17-40L, I love it: Ultra-wide, great optical quality and...feel good in hand.<br>

If my budget is enough, I go with EOS 5D + 17-40L without have any concern.</p>