Canon 10-22 vs. Tokina 11-16 for architecture photos?

[tim_carlson]

<p>I'm looking to purchase a super-wide angle zoom lens for my Rebel XTi and wanted to get some perspective on the two options I’m considering (the Canon 10-22/F3.5-4.5 and the Tokina 11-16/F2.8) for what I intend to use it for. My primary uses for this lens would be for architecture (about 70% interior photos and 30% exterior), but with other uses such as landscapes, nature, or other outdoor photography. For the architectural photos, I’m an architect and would use it both to take photos of compact spaces for project background information, but also documentation of my work for my professional portfolio.</p>

<p>So the question I keep asking myself between these two lenses is which is more important for the interior photos, the few added degrees of view angle for the 10-22 or the bigger aperture for the 11-16? I have not had a chance to take either lens for a test drive yet to get a sense of how wide the angles of each lens, but am hoping to get some perspective from this community to help guide my decision. Right now I’m leaning toward the 11-16 for the aperture and hoping the angle will be sufficient for my intended use.</p>

<p>I’d appreciate any feedback you all can provide to help with my decision, especially with the use for architectural work. If it helps in the discussion, lenses I currently own are a Canon 24-85/F3.5-4.5, a Canon 50/F1.8 II, and a Canon 100-300/F4.5-5.6. Thanks!</p>

<p>Tim Carlson</p>

 

[henry_l]

<p>I have the 10-22 on a crop body, it's plenty wide for everything I use it for. I have a newborn, and I take pictures of him in his environment (home). Since he already has a big head (compared to the rest of his body) it's kinda fun. @ 22, the distortion goes away (at least to my eyes). For landscapes, It works fine. I don't find that the variable aperture is limiting when shooting outdoors. But for large indoor expanses with low light, it could be limiting. General consensus says that the Tokina is pretty good, but I am very happy with my 10-22, it does deliver close to L quality images. For reference, @10mm, I can stand in on the sidewalk, and take a picture of my house, and include half of my neighbors houses on both sides, and my drive way is one car length. I haven't taken my lens into the city to take pics of building and skyscrapers...yet.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>I'd rent one of them for a week to see if it is what you want. <br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f3.5-4.5">http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f3.5-4.5</a></p>

<p>I have a Canon 10-22 and use it a lot. However, when I think of architectural shoots with the 10-22 I think of the significant distortion of a wide angle lens.. any wide angle. Right now if I wanted to shoot an inside room with an accurate rendition of the room I'd shoot verticle pano with one of your other lenses and stitch them. </p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>Here is an image with the 10-22 in my kitchen showing the problem with verticles and other distortions at the wide end.<br>

<a href="

[john_deerfield]

<p>Well, strictly speaking I would be looking for a tilt-shift lens. Between the 10-22 and the 11-16, I would opt for the Tokina 11-16. I have the 11-16 for Nikon and shot with a 10-22 when I was shooting Canon.</p>

[JeffOwen]

<p>I have the 10-22 Canon and just love it, it's one of my favourite lenses. I use it quite a lot for buildings including church interiors and think that the extra few degrees are worth it. I don't miss the lack of speed and use a tripod where permitted. Two things you have to be be aware of: 1. Keep the camera level else you get parallax errors and 2. If you you it for close ups of people you will get perspective distortion particularly at the edges.</p>

<p>Both of these problems can be reduced using Photoshop, the first by simple parallax control e,g. Edit, Transform, Distort, and the second by using Edit, Transform, Warp.</p>

[swenson]

<p>My wife is an architect and used the 10-22mm with her Rebel all the time. As mentioned there's going to be distortion with just about anything other than a very expensive tilt-shift lens. However, these can easily be corrected with just about any of the post-production tools. Since, by their nature architectural shots rarely involve any movement with a tripod you can shout in extremely low light so the 2/3 thirds stop shouldn't be a big issue. I guess it comes down to weather you feel comfortable with a third party and the $140 difference in price. Neither of us have ever used the Tokina. For what it's worth back in film days I had the $180 Tokina plastic fantastic, 19-35 mm, and she had a very expensive 17-35mm Simga (over $550) that had an extra 1/2 stop and 2mm. We couldn't tell the difference in IQ. What would really be nice would be a 10 or 12 mm EF-S prime.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In the long run, my beau ideal of a lens for this sort of thing is a TS-E 17mm on a 35mm-sensor body. Not cheap, but a literally unequaled lens.</p>

<p>I have a (old model) Sigma 10-20 mm that I do use for architecture, but there is barrel distortion, as there is with all of these ultrawide lenses. It is fixable in post. I also have a Sigma 15-30 that I use for interiors on a 5D, but I still use my old PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 on an adapter where it is short enough. In fact, that's why I bought a 5D - to put that Nikkor shift lens back into use while I am saving for the 17mm TS-E. :)</p>

<p>For interiors, you are usually going to be using a tripod and that makes the little bit of extra light gathering of the f/2.8 a little less crucial. When a tripod is not feasible, you can always pump up the ISOs and accept some noise. 1mm difference doesn't sound like much, but at these focal lengths there is a noticeable difference in coverage.</p>

<p>With the post processing available these days, even unlikely (architectural) lenses like the EF-S 17-85mm lens can work out pretty well. IS is a big help in hand holding.</p><div></div>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>I have the Tokina and love it, though I haven't used it for architecture. For indoor shots, it's aperture would be hard to beat. As recently as yesterday, though, I've seen used or reconditioned Canon T-S lenses for between $900-$1000, which isn't much more than you'd pay for the 10-22. If you don't have that much money or want something that is a little more general-purpose, the Tokina costs less, is built better, and is a pleasure to use. For me, the 1mm difference on the WA end didn't matter and I've got the 17-55 to pick up where it leaves off on the telephoto end. Honestly, I think you would be happy with either.</p>

[danny_low]

<p>I had to make this choice a while back and went with the Sigma 10-20mm for the wider angle. There is a physical limit to how far back you can step inside a small room so the wider angle is very important. OTOH the faster f stop is not as critical. First the light level inside a room is usually low so you are using a tripod anyway. So the slower shutter speed of a smaller aperture will not affect sharpness much. Also a tripod is needed to make sure the lens is level to minimize barrel and pin cushioning distortion. Second the rule of thumb for any lens is it is sharpest 2-3 f stop below wide open, so you will be shooting at a smaller aperture anyway if you want the sharpest image.</p>

<p>What is more important is the barrel and pin cushioning specs for the lenses. For interior shots you will be using the lenses all the way to its edges. Even when perfectly level, you will get some distortions with either lens. According to Popular Photography's test results, the Sigma has barrel distortion of 0.46% at 10mm versus 0.34% at 11mm for the Tokina but at 14mm the Sigma is much better with 0.06% versus 0.13% for the Tokina. As much of the interiors I shot are public places where I am more likely to shoot at 14mm than 10mm, I decided to go with the Sigma.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

[hadi_khademi]

<p>A couple of months ago Sigma released the <strong>8-16mm</strong> F4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens with excellent reviews like this one: <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc</a> . Before seeing reviews of this lens, I was ready to purchase the Tokina 11-16 mm but now I have second thoughts because of 3 extra degrees of coverage of Sigma, which is a lot for this range of focal length. Also typical for most Tokina lenses Tokina 11-16 mm has one weakness: lateral CAs which are very high at all settings, but for Sigma it's very well controlled. The only thing you might not like about Sigma is the Aspherical lens and inability of using any filters on front of the lens. </p>

[robertjewett]

<p>I can't comment on the Tokina, but I really my Sigma 10-20. I have also used the Canon 10-22, and I own the 17mmTS-E. You'll be happy with the Sigma.</p>

[tim_carlson]

<p>Thank you all for your responses, I appreciate the different perspectives and insights! I still haven't quite made up my mind, but your responses have been helpful with some of my concerns.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>I faced the same choice last year, I went with the Tokina because speed matters for me. If you are going to use a tripod that's not an issue. I also like Tokina's superior build quality. I've seen some lateral CAs with it, but I had no problem correcting it in post-processing. What I don't like is that is quite prone to flares, and that's something you can't correct later on. Canon's 10-22 should handle flares better.<br>

All in all, I think both lens would serve you well.</p>

<p>Massimo</p>