- Status
Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 2.8. I find Tokina sharper.
There is a version II of the 11-16 now. It came out this summer! I think it doesn't suffer from CA as much as I.
I wouldn't suggest the Sigma alternatives. Getting a good Sigma lens is like winning the lottery. Get a Sigma ONLY if you can test the actual lens before purchase. 8-16 or 10-20 3.5.
There is a version II of the 11-16 now. It came out this summer! I think it doesn't suffer from CA as much as I.
I wouldn't suggest the Sigma alternatives. Getting a good Sigma lens is like winning the lottery. Get a Sigma ONLY if you can test the actual lens before purchase. 8-16 or 10-20 3.5.
Upvote
0
I hear the Tokina 11-16 is as sharp or sharper than the Canon 10-22(my 10-22 is damn sharp), it is for sure faster and evidently built better. I would make the jump to it if it didn't flare when pointed at light sources. I shoot a lot at night and the 17-40L I had was annoying enough with flare. You can fix CA and even sharpness easier than strong flaring. I would have jumped to the Tokina long ago if it didn't flare. Perhaps this new version which I know nothing about has fixed the flaring. From what I've seen with the first version you can count on sharp vivid green flares. The 10-22 has always been pretty amazing to me in this regard. Point the thing at the sun and not even get much of a flare anywhere.
Upvote
0
Having used both, I'd say the Tokina is built better, and is obviously faster, but I can't really say it's sharper. Plus, it has half the range. If you were doing video work, or were always going to be shooting in low-light, I'd have suggested the Tokina. Otherwise, get the Canon 10-22, as its more versatile, and as mentioned, the flare handling is better. Especially since price wise they are very similar.extremeinstability said:
Also, the 10-22 can focus slightly closer (9" v 12"), so for that specific purpose its better. You will likely find the distortion of both to be a little frustrating for shooting historic buildings, but, that's the nature of any wide angle lens.
Upvote
0
I ended up going with the Sigma EX 10-20 f4-5.6. I had read horror stories about Sigma's quality control. However, after shooting with it only a short time, I realized that they are not all bad lenses - well not mine at least! I have tried both the canon 10-22 and the Tokina 12-24 and I have found my Sigma is sharper than either of the other copies I tried. As well, mine seems to have little to no CA. So, your mileage may vary but I have been extremely pleased with mine.
Upvote
0
I'm very happy with my Sigma 8-16mm.
About 12.8 to 25.6? That's pretty wide and the build and image quality on mine is just great.
Sure, it's true that the QC isn't the very best at Sigma - I had issues with my 50mm 1.4 once - but you can run into that in every other company, including Canon.
This worth a read:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
About 12.8 to 25.6? That's pretty wide and the build and image quality on mine is just great.
Sure, it's true that the QC isn't the very best at Sigma - I had issues with my 50mm 1.4 once - but you can run into that in every other company, including Canon.
This worth a read:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
Upvote
0
C
crasher8
Guest
ef-s 10-22, L quality glass, regular build. Price isn't exactly low but a refurb is 687 USD.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_269483_-1
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_269483_-1
Upvote
0
The 10-22 is a very good lens and is the crop camera's equivalent to a FF 16-35. For crop ultrawides, it's really a pick between the 10-22, the Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 8-16. All three are good choices, and each has it's strengths. If you want the widest, get the Sigma. If you want the largest aperture and the sharpest corners, get the Tokina. If you want an all around good performer, get the Canon. The Tokina has a larger aperture and is a little sharper at the edges than the Canon, but it's focal length range is limited. The Tokina tends to be favored for architecture. I find the overlap range (15 to 17-22 mm) really handy because it minimizes lens swaps. To to take a picture of a room or a scenic vista, use the 10mm. To take a group picture, use the 22mm range. The 10-22 also has the largest maximum magnification ratio of 0.17 compared to Tokina's 0.09 and Sigma's 0.13, which helps for closeup shots.
Upvote
0
This is a no brainier. If its one non canon lens thats worth its salt to the cropped crowd its that tokina. Unfortunately you have to keep it at 16 on the FF and you get some vignetting. But overall its great and its more solidly built than most L lenses.
Upvote
0
I've used the Tokina 11-16 and the canon 10-22. The canon is much better in my opinion. Also, 10mm vs 11mm is a much bigger difference than you might think.
However, the Tokina is still a really nice lens.
However, the Tokina is still a really nice lens.
Upvote
0
I've got a 8-16 and would recommend it. Compares well with 17-55 for centre sharpness and solid enough. No focus issues on a 7D as the smaller aperture and wide angle means virtually everything is in focus anyway. Went through same decision with Tokina and 10-22 and no regrets as I wanted wide as possible, plus I'm happy to frame (a lot) tighter with 17-55 or 30 1.4 when the light fades. If I'd intended on more light limited handheld shots would probably have gone with the Tokina, and I guess the 10-22 sits in the middle. Your choice is a trade off between aperture and how wide you can go although the Sigma takes up a lot less space in your bag than the 10-22 with hood, but the 8-16 won't take filters easily!
Upvote
0
akiskev said:
my images just looked sharper with the canon, and with landscape shots its much more noticeable.
Upvote
0
The Canon EF-S 10-22mm will deliver L grade performance in a EF-S mount. For the subject matter you are describing, the premium IQ of the Canon will make it a more satisfying experience than the Tokina. For your planned closeup work, it's worthwhile noting that the Canon has an appreciably closer minimum focus distance.houston1852 said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Tested Min Focus Distance (Wide / Long) 8.9” / 8.82”
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tokina-11-16mm-f-2.8-AT-X-Pro-DX-Lens-Review.aspx
Tested Min Focus Distance (Wide / Long) 11.89” / 12.28”
-PW
Upvote
0
S
Steve Campbell
Guest
I have only used the 10-22, but it lived on the cameras I had at the time (Xsi and 60D). It's a very nice lens and there are no problems with the build quality. I switched to full frame eventually and picked up a 17-40, but there isn't much difference in those two lenses.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
