*HELP* Alternatives to Canon EF-S 10-22mm

[lonelywhitelights]

I'm currently planning a trip to Iceland and I'm looking to upgrade my current gear to take advantage of the amazing scenery there. I'm almost sure that I'm going to end up purchasing the EF-S 10-22mm lens (current UK price £600) but I'm aware of the other lenses available in this particular range and just wondered about other peoples thoughts on the:

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (£380)

and

Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 (£365)

Are these lenses worth the lower end budget price? how do they feel? are they nice and heavy, or light and "plasticy"?

The two Tokina models that interest me are the 11-16mm f/2.8 (£535) and the 12-24mm f/4 (£460)
They are a little more expensive, given that they offer a constant aperture across the zoom range, but still less money than the Canon model. I'm not 100% sold on actually needing the constant f/2.8 as much of what I'll be shooting will be shot between f/8 and f/16 and I'll be doing some 9-Stop ND work too so again the f/2.8 isn't exactly needed, but is this lens as good as people say it is? The 12-24mm has good reviews too but it's not as wide as the Tamron, Sigma or Canon models.

All of the results I've seen online from all of these lenses are really great, It's generally hard to choose based on IQ alone, especially when most images online are usually low-res or the quality has decreased due to the uploading process

What I want to know is if anyone has used the Canon model and one or a few of the others, what are your opinions? is the Canon worth spending the extra money? or are the lower budget lenses as good as reviewers say they are?

many, many thanks.
Adam Cross

 

[Canon-F1]

i had the tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on my aps-c body (7D) but ended up with the EF 10-22mm.

i need the UWW for landscape so f2.8 was not a big deal for me.

the tokina had much more CA and flare was not well controlled.

sharpness wise my tokina was a bit better then the EF 10-22mm in the center and equal on the borders.

but flare was a major issue for me.
CA can be removed in post but removing flare is a pain in the a..

im very happy with my EF 10-22mm.

 

[mistabernie]

I had the Sigma 10-20 F/4-5.6 for a while and liked it quite a bit, but I found that I didn't use it all that much and traded it for my 85 F/1.8. It didn't feel 'plasticy' at all - felt like a perfectly solid lens (in fact, it had its fair share of bumps and bruises and took great images from the time I took it out of the box to the time I was taking test images with which to sell the lens. I got it at a very good price (under $400 USD) too so to me it was worth it over the extra money for the Canon 10-22.

Best of luck!

 

[DianeK]

I too was trying to choose between Tokina's 11-16 and Canon's 10-22. Although the Tokina was a tad sharper, I simply could not abide the flare and CA issues. Yes, CA can be removed in post-processing but I've never been happy with the effort required to do so nor with the end result. The 10-22 does have some CA but at least in Lightroom, the lens profile feature removes it with just one "click". Tokina does not have a profile in Lightroom for easily dealing with CA.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Adam,

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.

 

[Imagination_landB]

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

 

[lonelywhitelights]

Hi Adam,

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

I had previously looked at the 8-16 but given the nature of the front element I won't be able to use any of my current filters so that puts me off that one

 

[lonelywhitelights]

Just want to say a big thanks to everyone for their input and advice, I am still leaning towards the Canon model, but I think what I might do is rent out the Canon 10-22mm and the Sigma 10-20mm for a week before I head out to Iceland and see which I prefer, work out the pros and cons of both and just see how it goes

thanks again! really appreciate the effort you guys go to help people out, was my first time starting a topic so I wasn't sure if I would even get a response, so thanks (again)

 

[VerbalAlchemy]

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.

 

[tron]

hello,

I had a Canon 10-22 for my 40D (until both were stolen...).
It was a very nice lens.

I personally do not trust much third party lenses (I do though have a Zeiss ZE lens).
The reason is that I have a Tokina ATX 28-70 f/2.8 and a Sigma 14mm that are good as paperweights!

They were bought long ago and cannot be upgraded :-(
In fact the Tokina could not even work on a Canon 50E film camera!

So the third party lens that works today may not work tomorrow.
Maybe these days where the firmware can (if) can be upgraded the situation is different.

Pity because I quite liked them, especially the Tokina.

 

[Rampado]

why are you all missing the sigma 10-20 f3.5 ?

I think it´s the best in that range...

 

[lonelywhitelights]

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.

Thanks for your input, the 10-22 is mainly to replace the kit lens (18-135mm). I have a 50 and 17-40mm L lens I rarely use the 18-135 higher than 30mm (telephoto work isn't something I do often but I have a Minolta MD 300mm lens which I use with an MD-EF converter) so that's why I've been looking for a more specialised UWA lens

 

[lonelywhitelights]

why are you all missing the sigma 10-20 f3.5 ?

I think it´s the best in that range...

I did take a look at this lens, but as with the Tokina 11-16mm, paying extra money for the constant aperture doesn't really seem worth it as I'll be stopping down a great deal for my landscape work.

 

[justsomedude]

Don't forget, the Tokina 11-16 mkii is coming this spring...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2995.msg63705.html#new

I'd wait for that if I were you.

 

[tron]

I found the following link in this forum (CR):

http://www.akphotodenver.com/2011/06/14/tokina-acknowledges-pairing-issue-with-11-16mm-f2-8-lens-and-canon-7d/

(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:

http://www.highdefedition.com/2009/10/canon-7d-autofocus-issue/comment-page-1/

This backs my distrust in 3rd party lens makers.
Of course they may solve it but again what happens with the future EOS bodies?

http://www.highdefedition.com/2009/10/canon-7d-autofocus-issue/comment-page-1/

 

[lonelywhitelights]

I found the following link in this forum (CR):

http://www.akphotodenver.com/2011/06/14/tokina-acknowledges-pairing-issue-with-11-16mm-f2-8-lens-and-canon-7d/

(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:

http://www.highdefedition.com/2009/10/canon-7d-autofocus-issue/comment-page-1/

This backs my distrust in 3rd party lens makers.
Of course they may solve it but again what happens with the future EOS bodies?

http://www.highdefedition.com/2009/10/canon-7d-autofocus-issue/comment-page-1/

Thanks for the links! I can happily rule out the Tokina since so many people are having issues with that lens and the 7D, I don't use autofocus very often (especially with wide angle landscape work) but obviously it's worthwhile to have a lens that works 100% with your camera, especially when you're spending decent amounts of money on them!

 

[Joellll]

The Tokina 11-16 is definitely one of my favourite lens I own. I don't find the flare as big of a bother, but rather the far MFD.

Is there a need for a UWA zoom lens? Because when you look at the Tokina as a UWA prime with zooming as a bonus it's actually a great deal.

Perhaps as justsomedude said, the Mk II of the Tokina will fix the flare?

 

[traveller]

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...

 

[well_dunno]

I used to have a Tokina 12-24 f/4 - CA and flare are known issues with it but the lens was a pleasure to shoot with... Perhaps it's a build-quality effect

Also, Sigma is the only option that can be used on FF, isn't it?

 

[ejenner]

but flare was a major issue for me.
CA can be removed in post but removing flare is a pain in the a..

im very happy with my EF 10-22mm.

+1, although the 10-22 still has enough CA that I do remove it in PP.

On a wide angle, for landscapes flare is one of the biggest concerns for me. + you can put filters on it.

Someone mentioned the MFD - it' super short on the 10-22. I think quoted at 9 inches, bu that must be to the sensor becasue it seems to be much less than that. I think some manufacturers like sigma quote MFD to the front of the lens.

Basically you can get very, very close to the foreground with the 10-22.