exciting times! looks legit. can't wait for the III to be released so the mark II will go down in price
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
well it's getting intresting:
FF "7D-5D" 18 MP 51 k ISO merge? rock'n'roll, gentlemen
22 MP please, don't forget the crowd out there, we want at least one up!
I'd only buy the Tokina 11-16 if you know that you'll need f/2.8; the Canon is both wider and longer and thus a more useful lens for landscape work. Personally, I own the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, it has very solid (but not L-class) construction and is almost the equal of the Canon resolution wise at f/8 and above. Whilst it has better resolution, I couldn't recommend spending the extra on the Canon; if you're buying it the UK the 10-22 costs more than the 17-40 f/4L! That's just a rip-off in my book...
I found the following link in this forum (CR):
(Credit to the original uploader) that mentions autofocus problems of the Tokina with the 7D (especially the non center point)
In that article you can find also a reference to:
This backs my distrust in 3rd party lens makers.
Of course they may solve it but again what happens with the future EOS bodies?
why are you all missing the sigma 10-20 f3.5 ?
I think it´s the best in that range...
Sounds like you might have made your choice-- but just to chime in:
I've tested the 10-22 and own the 11-16. I needed the constant, fast aperture, so the 11-16 wasn't a hard choice. It is definitely prone to flare, though I haven't had a huge CA problem (seems trivial compared, to say, my 85 f1.8 ). The short focal range is the biggest drawback; unless you're planning to shoot wide shots for an extended period, it can be tedious switching lenses or carrying two bodies.
The extra reach of the 10-22 not only gives you one more degree on the wide end (which is bigger than it seems at wide angles-- a 9% gain over the Tokina) and the reach at 22 gets you all the way to a classic 35mm perspective. In other words, it can shift between UW and the more intimate but still moderately wide framing that many traditional journalists and street photographers used. The Tokina is always a bit too short when you need to make such a transition-- which is somewhat frequently, for me.
For you, it sounds like tripod-mounted landscape work is the name of the game, so you might be less hassled by lens changes. But if you'll be using the lens for other applications, the focal range is a consideration.
Otherwise, the lenses are about equal in sharpness, at least in my eyes. Canon saturation might be a bit better. Tokina has much better build quality-- but the Canon isn't a slouch. Solid but definitely not L-grade.
IMO, the Canon 10-22mm is the best option. It's the middle of the road option of the three (IMO) best APS-C UWA zooms. Those break down as follows:
• Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 - narrowest range, fastest aperture
• Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 - widest angle, slowest aperture
• Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 - broadest range, intermediate aperture
From an IQ standpoint, it's basically a wash between the three. Those three are better than the other two lenses you mention. But, I think the Canon is an excellent compromise - unless you'll need to shoot in low light, the Canon is the way to go. I used to have the 10-22mm, only sold it after getting the 5DII and the 16-35/2.8L II to replicate the focal length.
I truly like my sigma 8-16. There's npthing larger on an aps-c. Yes it does start at 4.5(8mm) and 5.6(16mm) but for me it's not an issue at all. Also IQ IMO. is very good and the price is great