best wide or ultra wide angle lens for crop sensorh

[Menace]

Go with the EFs 10-22 for the crop sensor camera

 

[Eimajm]

I have the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC HSM which I find an excellent lens, it really is sharp and well built. The Canon is 60% more expensive than the Sigma here in the UK and from comparing images is I didn't think was worth the extra cost. It's my only third party lens but is no way inferior to my Canon lenses.

 

[chauncey]

I'm sorry but, I cannot understand the fascination with WA lenses.
A quick look at the MTF characteristics shows their inadequacies.
Using any of the photomerge techniques, IMHO, offers a much superior image.

 

[AJ]

Another happy Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 user here. My copy is sharp corner-to-corner. This lens delivers again and again. I've never tested it against Canon 10-22. I'm sure the Canon is at least as good. Bottom line: there are some great choices, and it's hard to go wrong with any of these lenses.

 

[preppyak]

Using any of the photomerge techniques, IMHO, offers a much superior image.

Except photomerging takes times, and if you are including anything in the scene that moves (wildlife, water, etc), its a big pain to deal with. I'd rather know exactly what my image is going to look like than hope I nailed my photo merges later. Plus, there are some things you can do with the distortion that photo merging can't really match.

The only way I'd agree with you is if we were talking a T/S lens and using it to do the photomerges. But, that's $2k+ I don't have.

my images just looked sharper with the canon, and with landscape shots its much more noticeable.

Weird, I didn't see any difference. I preferred the Canon's autofocus, as I find the Tokina to be slow, but, it's rare that I'm actually using AF in my landscape scenes.

I thought the Tokina had an easier distortion to correct, while the Canon flared less. Both were sharp and great, can't go wrong with either

 

[crasher8]

An UWA isn't something to drool and spew over, as in fascination, but a good tool in the lens toolbox. PP only takes the photographer out of the equation and makes you a computer manipulator. Not why I pick up a camera.

 

[dr croubie]

Add in another vote for the Sigma 8-16mm.

Basically, there's 3 Ultrawides worth looking at:
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Get this for indoors, or where you need fast-shutter or low-light. Apparently bad CA (which can be removed in PP if you really want. the mk2 version will allegedly be out this year, with Tokina themselves acknowledging the CA and promising the mk2 will get be better)
Sigma 8-16 f/(we may as well call it a constant f/5.6). Use it outdoors or on a tripod, don't even think about indoors. Widest framing you'll get on any format (shared with the sigma 12-24s on FF).
Canon 10-22. Bit of a compromise between the two, good IQ and medium aperture.

The canon goes for $7-800 on ebay, lucky if you can get one for $600. The Sigma and Tokina go for $5-600, I got my sigma for $475. Yes, there's other versions (2 more sigmas and a tamron), don't bother unless you want to save money (although i'd consider the tamron 'wasting' money, not saving).
The Tokina and Canon you can put filters on, Sigma not (although I do plan on trying with some 4x6 filters when I can afford them.
The canon you can't put on FF, the Tokina I don't know, but the sigma i've taken shots on FF at 15-16mm (when the hood is *just* out of the frame).


As for stitching: been there, done that, got the Ninja. It's really annoying when clouds move and trees shake, which seems to be every frickin time I try to stitch. It also mucks your exposures a lot, and I've had one case of white balance being completely thrown out from flare washing out one frame.
If you like PP, fine, go ahead. But i'm kinda over it...