Wide angle lens' for crop sensor camera

[mhlas7]

I just took the plunge and ordered myself a 60d upgrading from a 450d. I also bought the EF 35mm f/2 (not the new one with IS) because I wanted a fast prime for general shooting to replace the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the 450d.

I am an outdoors person so I love to shoot landscapes so I have been looking for a good wide angle prime for this. After having the EF 35mm for a while, I would like to get a wide angle prime lens over a zoom. The wide aperture for shooting in low light or nighttime situations and the great amount of control over the depth of field. I don't need the flexibility of a zoom (however I am open to zoom recommendations) as landscapes are more about composition than framing (and you can always crop it later if you want). I am leaning away from a fisheye lens because of their distortion and if I were to use one I would end up correcting every image anyway. I would also like something that I could throw a rectangular ND Grad on for certain situations

Here is what I have found so far in my budget (<$700)

• Rokinon 16mm f/2.0. Its a new lens so their aren't any reviews out yet but it's very simple. Manual focus, manual aperature and APS-C only. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/981706-REG/rokinon_16m_c_16mm_f2_0_ultra_wide_angle.html
• Canon EF 20mm f/2.8. This is about as tight as I would like to go for a wide angle lens otherwise this looks like a good pick. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12082-USA/Canon_2509A003_Super_Wide_Angle_EF.html
• Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 The only thing I don't like about this lens is that it doesn't have any filter threads http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769532-REG/Rokinon_FE14M_C_14mm_Ultra_Wide_Angle_f_2_8.html

Right now i'm not sure what to go with. There doesn't seem to be very many options in the segment. I can't be the only one with this problem.

 

[Loswr]

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or a used Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5.

 

[verysimplejason]

or Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 Ex Dc Hsm. Make sure it's F3.5. The other one isn't that good.

 

[emag]

The Tokina's been great on my 40D and 60D.

 

[GmwDarkroom]

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or a used Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5.

These two are the definite standouts in APS-C wide angle.

If you'd like to replace your 18-55 kit with a much better option and don't need to go quite as wide, the 15-85 is an excellent lens for APS-C.

 

[Grumbaki]

The canon 10-22 rocks. Used it a lot before going FF.

 

[cellomaster27]

Don't get the canon 20mm... Used to have that and it isn't good on crop. It's not wide. I highly recommend the canon 10-22 overall. Tried and hated the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. Tokina 11-16mm is good but with the short awkward zoom range, it basically functions as a prime. You really can't go wrong with the canon.

 

[TexPhoto]

Agree with those above. The zooms in this category are great. I think I'd opt for the Sigma 8-16. Because it can be so damn wide. Or the Sigma 12-24, because it's a FF lens and works great on crop.

 

[beckstoy]

Agree with those above. The zooms in this category are great. I think I'd opt for the Sigma 8-16. Because it can be so damn wide. Or the Sigma 12-24, because it's a FF lens and works great on crop.

+1

I had the Sigma 10-20, which was a great lens, but I regretted not getting the 12-24 just for the FF options. When I went to FF from the 40D, I sold my 10-20 and got the 12-24. No regrets! They're pretty inexpensive and have great IQ (at least my copy does).

If I were you, I'd look seriously at the Sigma 12-24. On a crop it won't be a fisheye, but it will be wide. On a FF, if you eventually go that way, it will be amazing.

Good Luck!

 

[wsmith96]

canon 10-22 works great, and refurb ones can be found on canon direct for around ~600 or less.

 

[kang159]

apparently, Canon 10-22 is fantastic.
I purchased mine because I read somewhere that the only reason it's not an L is because it's an EF-S.

 

[kphoto99]

Don't discount a fisheye on crop, I just got the Rokinon 8mm and I like it on my crop camera. It is equivalent to about 13mm on FF.

Here is an example landscape picture I took with it. This didn't need any correction for distortion.

 

[drob]

I was in the same boat as you...looking for a wide angle prime, something that was fast, something you could screw some filters on, and not a fisheye...I bought the Rokinon (actually Samyang) 16mm 2.0 and although I haven't had much time to play with it, I do like it. But after $500 invested with shipping and tax...I'm having buyers regret. The new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 keeps sounding better and better. Although, it's not super wide, I like the fact that it's wide enough, sharp (from what I keep reading), has autofocus, multipurpose, screw on filter threads, and can be used for astrophotgraphy. Just something else to consider....

 

[tcmatthews]

I have the old Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 I bought it right after the Sigma 3.5 came out. At the time the 3.5 suffered from Quality Control problems de-centering primarily and was 3 star on Amazon and it takes 82mm filters. I had a complete set of 77mm filters already.

There was a website that had a big comparison between the two Sigmas, the Tamron and the Canon at every f stop. It rated the Canon top because it was slightly sharper but they noted that the Sigma f4-5.6 had better contrast they were all very close.

I planed on using it primary for landscape and at the time was not a fan of Wide Angle. Preferring telephoto and macro I could not justify the price difference between the Canon and the Sigma 10-20. them from the pictures the little difference The Tamron did not have USM so it was out.

The Canon was too expensive for a lens outside my primary interests so it was out. The Sigma 3.5 had to many problems and was price the same as the Canon.

So I bought the 10-20 f4-5.6. It shoots different than all my other lens. It comes out best when shooting with all focus points in auto select. If I just used center point it would always miss focus edge points were always fine to use it just hates the center focus point. It also does better with spot metering.

If I was going to buy again I would buy the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I know someone with a stellar copy and will not give it up for anything. If you wanted it you would have to pry it from his cold dead hands. He actual uses it on his secondary camera when shooting full frame and preferred it over all the full frame options that are out and he has rented them all.

The Tokina has such a short focus range most consider it a specialty lens. It almost functions as a prime. I would not consider the primes because compared to the zoom lens they are a little lack luster. That said I really like my Rokinon 8mm but it is a fish eye and does not take filters.

The one thing the Sigma did was get me hooked on Wide angle lens. To bad it was on my 60d that took a bath. Funny it lives while the camera died. Now I have a foggy zombie Sig. It needs a cleaning and some adjustment to the somewhat functioning Auto-focus.

 

[dgatwood]

apparently, Canon 10-22 is fantastic.
I purchased mine because I read somewhere that the only reason it's not an L is because it's an EF-S.

It's slower than an L lens would be in that focal range, in all likelihood. The center is not as sharp on a crop-body as the angle-equivalent 16-35 L II is on a full frame, though the edges are more sharp. Less CA than the 16-35 L II. Less vignetting. So yeah, it might pass for an L lens if it weren't EF-S. It's certainly one of the better EF-S lenses, IMO.

 

[pj1974]

This is one area where I feel APS-C photographers ARE literally "spoiled for choice" these days; that is there are many great options when looking for ultra wide angle (UWA) zooms.

While the OP stated that a zoom isn't necessarily needed, it was also stated that would be considered. I would suggest a zoom. I'm also an outdoor person, and landscapes are some of my favourite photos to take. (I strongly dislike fisheye!) I've felt that the flexibility of a zoom does help in composition - and a few mm either side makes a lot of difference at these ultra wide angles.

Obviously there is lens to lens variation and QC, but I've done a lot of researching - and my own real world testing of UWAs... and am providing the below as some assistance to the OP.

There are several options I'd recommend.
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 sharp and particularly good if one enjoys low light (and particularly astro / night photography)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=1

Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 as a good OEM option (as Neuro suggested, a 2nd hand would fit budget)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/174-canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1

Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 as a great UWA lens all round - good IQ and one of the best value. It's slightly slower than the Canon, but for most landscapes that's not a huge issue
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/307-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-hsm-ex-dc-lab-test-report--review?start=1

Actually what verysimplejason wrote below is incorrect and not backed up by any data or research.

or Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 Ex Dc Hsm. Make sure it's F3.5. The other one isn't that good.

The Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 is actually sharper at the wide setting (and most focal lengths) than the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5.

Compare the analysis of both Sigma 10-20mm lenses here (in Nikkor format, as Photozone hasn't reviewed the f/3.5 in APS-C Canon mount):
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/308-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-dc-ex-hsm-lab-test-report--review?start=1
Tests (& user reviews - also those who have purchased later f/3.5 versions) at SLR report the same, ie that the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 is sharper at most focal lengths (with the f/3.5 having noticeably softer corners in particular - not just the decentering issue, though to be fair some f/4.5-5.6 lenses also had decentering issues):
Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/171/cat/31 being sharper than
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1250/cat/31

The only downside of the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 is CA at 10mm. However thankfully automated post processing can get rid of that very well, so easily.

If I were buying lenses today, perhaps the option I would go with is the Sigma 8-16mm (the widest in its class) which has received good reviews - but a bit more expensive (so you might need to look for a 2nd half / refurbed model)
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc?start=1
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1330/cat/31

There are other options, like the older Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (not bad) and Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 (not the best), etc, etc, etc - but I'd recommend the first one's I've listed. I definitely notice the difference between 10mm and 12mm, with wider being better.

As I also have the Canon 15-85mm (love this as an all purpose lens) - I don't need / use the Sigma as much as I used to when my 'wide' was 18mm on a kit zoom. But I still do use the Sigma regularly for dedicated landscape, architecture and special effects.

I use my Sigma 10-20mm UWA lens at these settings the most: 10mm f/8 (usually at ISO100 or ISO400) where it consistently is shown to be a tad sharper than the Canon. The Sigma provides great results, I've taken thousands of photso with it. The Canon 10-22mm is a good lens - but I don't like the huge, weird lens hood and briefly a few other UWAs. When I bought my UWA, there were not the later options of eg Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or the Sigma 8-16mm.

Also, it is significant to note that UWA lenses for crop sensor DSLRs (ie APS-C cameras) are consistently sharper than their FF equivalents at the edges and particularly in the corners, (and especially so with lenses wide open). Even the higher end FF UWA lenses have noticeably softer edges & corners than what can be achieved on APS-C. This is actually one significant reason I'm happy to use UWAs on APS-C cameras.

As I started my post with... we are really spoiled for choice in this segment. 8)

Best wishes for your purchase, let us know how you go!

Paul

 

[yakman]

Get a EOS M + EF M 22/F2. The combo itself is cheaper than any lens mentioned above?
If you're happy with EF-S 10-22, EF-M 11-22 IS seems be better and cheaper as well.
Taking this option you gets better resolution, better ISO.
For landscape on crop, EOS M should be more than just capable?

 

[AprilForever]

I just took the plunge and ordered myself the new 70d upgrading from a 450d. I also bought the EF 35mm f/2 (not the new one with IS) because I wanted a fast prime for general shooting to replace the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the 450d.

I am an outdoors person so I love to shoot landscapes so I have been looking for a good wide angle prime for this. After having the EF 35mm for a while, I would like to get a wide angle prime lens over a zoom. The wide aperture for shooting in low light or nighttime situations and the great amount of control over the depth of field. I don't need the flexibility of a zoom (however I am open to zoom recommendations) as landscapes are more about composition than framing (and you can always crop it later if you want). I am leaning away from a fisheye lens because of their distortion and if I were to use one I would end up correcting every image anyway. I would also like something that I could throw a rectangular ND Grad on for certain situations

Here is what I have found so far in my budget (<$700)

• Rokinon 16mm f/2.0. Its a new lens so their aren't any reviews out yet but it's very simple. Manual focus, manual aperature and APS-C only. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/981706-REG/rokinon_16m_c_16mm_f2_0_ultra_wide_angle.html
• Canon EF 20mm f/2.8. This is about as tight as I would like to go for a wide angle lens otherwise this looks like a good pick. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12082-USA/Canon_2509A003_Super_Wide_Angle_EF.html
• Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 The only thing I don't like about this lens is that it doesn't have any filter threads http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/769532-REG/Rokinon_FE14M_C_14mm_Ultra_Wide_Angle_f_2_8.html

Right now i'm not sure what to go with. There doesn't seem to be very many options in the segment. I can't be the only one with this problem.

Tokina 11-16 2.8. You'll love it!!!

 

[verysimplejason]

Actually what verysimplejason wrote below is incorrect and not backed up by any data or research.

or Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 Ex Dc Hsm. Make sure it's F3.5. The other one isn't that good.

The Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 is actually sharper at the wide setting (and most focal lengths) than the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5.

Granted, there are bad reviews for the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 but I guess somebody agrees with me. It might be that Sigma lenses especially the old lenses vary from one copy to another that's why I'll quote Roger on this:

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/sigma-10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm-for-canon

To quote:

The Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 has a bit more distortion than the others but delivers very nice images and is also built much better than the Canon 10-22. It does everything well and probably is the best value of the bunch.

 

[SwissBear]

If f/2.8 is important (astro/lowlight), then the tokina is the best choice, i bought recently the old version because the improvements are not worth the extra 200CHF (slightly better flare control, faster AF).
The canon is maybe a bit sharper, i'd get that if the speed is not that important.