Sigma makes a sweet selection of UWA for the APS-C format. People knocked them before they started up with the 35mm and new makeover but in the UWA offerings they have been very well received. When I used my 7D's the 10-20 and the 8-16 were perfect. I love my 15mm Rect Fish for the FF, using it on both the 1DX and 5D3.
Yes they do. But the OP was looking for "Canon" lenes. Good to hear good words about 8-16 from someone who have used it. I wanted to buy it but finally went with the Tokina 12-24 f/4 last year. May be in future I will go for the sigma 8-16.
Would it be a huge ask to post a grab of a pic set at 8mm and a pic set at 11mm.
I'm really very delighted with my Tokina, but if the extra 3mm makes a substantial difference (which at this end of the FL's it is likely to) then I might be trying to convice Santa about my behaviour this year.
Super stuff. would you have anything of the same scene just for a comparison for field of view?
Looks great! You live in a nice part of the world.
my daughter lives in perth au so when i go to visit her i always love taking photos. there is a good comparison tool at the digital picture which has a gizmo and review for the sigma as well as all the other ultra wides for aps-c. it helped me decide. you can click on lens, focal range, and aperature. all in a matrix of the same scene, your tokina is the sharpest of the bunch but i like the 8mm width.
I’ve been following this thread, and am writing a reply here. I’m currently at work, using a bit of my break to write a reply – so I can’t upload any of my photos as they are on my home PC. (As a note, I live in Adelaide.... Perth is indeed a beautiful city of Australia, and so is Adelaide, they're fairly similar in some aspects).
When I bought my first DSLR (Canon 350D), I bought the Canon 28-135mm which became my most used lens, but it obviously isn’t wide. I bought the 50mm as my prime lens / fast glass. I had also bought the Canon 18-55m kit lens, so I used that for most of my ‘wide angle’ landscape shots. After some time I wanted wider, so I looked at the current UWA zoom lenses available, and ended up buying the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6.
At that stage there were only 3 real options: Canon 10-22mm (expensive- nearly double the Sigma), Tokina 12-24mm (not as wide as I wanted) and Sigma 10-20mm (bit of an unknown back then). I read several professional reviews and user reviews and went with the Sigma. I was very happy with the quality of the Sigma, though there was a bit of an issue with my first copy (AF/decentring). But my second copy of the same lens was much better- AF sometimes got thrown, but it was sharp corner to corner – which was my main criterion. I often use MF mostly anyway.
A few years after that, I bought the Canon 15-85mm, a great all purpose lens (and sold my Canon 28-135mm – which served me well). The 15-85mm is a much more useful focal range, plus it was superior in terms of sharpness, contrast, and IS. Many more UWA lenses for APS-C cameras have become available in the last few years, eg Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Tamron 10-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, etc. (As a note – the EF-M Canon 11-22m IS for the EOM is a very interesting lens, as it incorporates IS… certainly can be helpful, even for UWA shots… let’s see if Canon or other manufacturers comes out with an ultrawide for APS-C or FF that has IS….)
This year I decided to buy the Sigma 8-16mm (mainly as 8mm is 20% wider than 10mm – and reviews indicated it had superior IQ than my Sigma 10-20mm). I bought a new Sigma 8-16mm for a good price, and it certainly is a fantastic lens. I’ve used the Canon 10-22mm, which is also great, but the Sigma 8-16mm really has the features that I am after. It’s IQ and AF are superior to my Sigma 10-20mm: it has less CA, is sharper and that 8mm is certainly very wide (I need to keep in mind not to include my feet, or shadow in many shots). I’ve had a good run from my Sigma 10-20mm, and sold it for half of what I bought it for, but seeing as I’ve had it for over 6 years, I’m very happy with that!
Now, back to primes… I don’t find I need any specific ‘prime’ for ultrawide. I enjoy having UWA zooms, though yes, most of the time I do use them at their minimal focal range – and my Sigmas have been (very) sharp corner to corner – even wide open. I know some people might find an UWA prime handy for certain applications – however I would encourage people to try / consider the Sigma 8-16- it’s also a great complement for my 15-85mm - and on the tele end of my 15-85mm, I have my Canon 70-300mm L to complement – which is a super sweet, high IQ lens…
So for primes, I’m more interested in a new Canon 50mm prime, hopefully similar in specs to the latest Canon 35mm f/2 USM IS… So at 50mm, there is less difference if it’s a EF or EF-S lens. I enjoy the focal length of 50mm, for my style of photography (eg subject isolation, portrait photography, etc). I do at times use the 35-40mm focal range, but 50mm suits me better (when I have reviewed how I use my 15-85mm and 28-135mm lenses).
Finally, as a note - I use my Canon 100mm f/2.8 at times for non-macro applications (eg I’ve got some great outdoor portraits). I think the EF-S 60mm is also a great lens for lots of applications (actually can be ideal as a ‘semi-fast’ portrait lens on an APS-C too, but it’s not fast enough for me… and I don’t like the minimum (1:1) working distance … that’s why I went with the Canon 100mm USM instead. Let’s see what the future brings, but I think most people find EF primes do work for APS-C cameras.