Wide angle lens' for crop sensor camera

[Ido]

I am also thinking about getting an UWA lens for my 60D.

I really like the Tokina 11-16, and the 2.8 constant aperture is appealing.

However, given the low price of the EOS-M, I had a new idea - around the same price I can by the EOS-M and 11-22mm 4.5-5. (I wanted to by the EOS-M body anyway, so it just one more reason to pull the trigger, plus you don't really need a quick AF for landscape.

I know it's not really comparable, but what do you guys think about that?

 

[cellomaster27]

I am currently traveling in Korea.. I bought my canon UWA 10-22mm a couple weeks ago and its been on my camera 95% of the time. Lots of tight spaces and tall buildings. The versatility that this lens gives is awesome! I use it at 10 or 12mm mostly but 17-22 for photos of people. Really anything 15 and below gives too much "stretching" of the edges for portraits. Excellent at 10mm for architecture, landscape but very usable at 17-22 for pictures of people! I can't recommend this lens more! I love it! And again, I have tried the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and tokina 11-16 before.

The canon is fast, versatile, sharp, and controls IQ quite well. Well, I should just say fantastic.

 

[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.

Here's a comparison of Sigma 10-20 F3.5 and Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 just to prove my point.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/756/(brand)/Sigma/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/842/(brand2)/Sigma/(camera2)/0/(lens3)/757/(brand3)/Sigma/(camera3)/0

 

[tron]

Either a used 10-22 or a used 17-40 4L

For a crop I would prefer 10-22 (Actually I had it until it was stolen with my 40D and many other lenses)

 

[shutterwideshut]

Here's one link about UWA lens comparison for APS-C sensors. http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=34. Personally, I would prefer the Canon 10-22mm lens on my cropped sensor bodies.

 

[bholliman]

given the low price of the EOS-M, I had a new idea - around the same price I can by the EOS-M and 11-22mm 4.5-5. (I wanted to by the EOS-M body anyway, so it just one more reason to pull the trigger, plus you don't really need a quick AF for landscape).

+1

I have been thinking of adding an UWA zoom for landscapes. I don't think I'll use it often so I dont want to spend much for it. I was leaning toward a EF 17-40 4.0 to use on my 6D, but an EF-M 11-22 for my M will be cheaper and I assume similar IQ. I haven't seen any detailed reviews or comparisons for the 11-22 yet. But, the other EF-M lenses are excellent, so I assume the same for this one. Canon claims it will have superior IQ than the already excellent EF-S 10-22 plus it has image stabilization! Here is a link to the DP Review preview:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-efm-11-22-4-5p6-is-stm

Of course, I'm just looking at the cost of the lens, since I already have and EOS -M. This option would only make sense for the OP if they were already inclined to buy an M.

 

[Marsu42]

Either a used 10-22 or a used 17-40 4L

17mm isn't wide angle on crop, plus I wouldn't buy a 17-40L used right now - there are heavy Canon rebates, the used gear prices for L lenses are too high plus you might end up with a 8 year old lens if you didn't ask for the date code.

My advIice: f I would have decided to stay on crop, I'd have bought a Tokina 11-16 ... it isn't really a zoom given the short focal length difference, but it's f2.8 and relatively inexpensive esp. if you get the older mk1 that doesn't make much of a difference to the mk2 on the Canon mount. The advantage of the Canon 10-22 is the larger zoom range if you need that on an uwa & somewhat better flare resistance, but nothing dramatic.

Btw you can even use the Tokina on full frame on the 16mm end as a fixed wide angle lens, but it isn't really sharp in the corners.

 

[tron]

Either a used 10-22 or a used 17-40 4L

17mm isn't wide angle on crop, plus I wouldn't buy a 17-40L used right now - there are heavy Canon rebates, the used gear prices for L lenses are too high plus you might end up with a 8 year old lens if you didn't ask for the date code.

My advIice: f I would have decided to stay on crop, I'd have bought a Tokina 11-16 ... it isn't really a zoom given the short focal length difference, but it's f2.8 and relatively inexpensive esp. if you get the older mk1 that doesn't make much of a difference to the mk2 on the Canon mount. The advantage of the Canon 10-22 is the larger zoom range if you need that on an uwa & somewhat better flare resistance, but nothing dramatic.

Btw you can even use the Tokina on full frame on the 16mm end as a fixed wide angle lens, but it isn't really sharp in the corners.

My post continued:

For a crop I would prefer 10-22 ...

 

[crasher8]

Loved my 10-22 on a T2i and 7D.

 

[robbinzo]

I own both the 10-22 mm EFS and 17-40 mm L.
They are both excellent but I tend to favour the 17-40 mm for my own purposes.
The 17-40 mm isn't properly wide angle on a crop but it does focus blindingly fast (using centre AF point on my 550D).

 

[TommyLee]

agree with neuro here..,,
I have not tried Tokina 11-16 ...but Canon 10-22 is a good performer...
solid build

It should come as kit lens on crop body - IMO

I sold mine for $700 after yrs of use ...more than I paid new..
they are avail used...just check out to insure it is optically right...

usually less than $700
refurbished from canon would be ideal

I went from crop body to 5D2...
the 10-22 was last lens sold before the crop body (50D)

as the wide end on a cropper, the 10-22 (becomes 16-35mm) prepares you for a lot of options
to cover useful range...
...the 24-70/105 zooms fit right in..
I liked carrying the macro/ 10-22 as a 2 lens kit....
//////////

16-35 II replaced the 10-22 on FF.. same basic framing... a little better than 10-22..
then got 14 L II
still have the 16-35 II .. too useful to give up

resale of 10-22 is solid too..
as I said TOKINA might be good too...did not try it..heard good things

just my opinion

TOM

 

[preppyak]

based on what you wanted, for flexibility in low-light, you have 3 options it seems.

Rokinon 16mm f/2...that'll give you the most flexibility and give you the prime you want. But, like you said, there are basically 0 reviews. I leave the Rokinon 14mm out because of the lack of filters; and the options to adapt filters for it are as expensive as the lens itself (at which point, you might as well own the Tokina).

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8: Gives you a full stop over most of the other wide angle lenses, which is pretty key for low-light scenes or night photography. And it's just as sharp as the others. You wont really miss the difference between 16mm and 20-22mm.

Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Ultimate flexibility low-light wise, and it gives you a similar range as your old lens. It'd actually render the 35mm prime obsolete too

 

[mhlas7]

Re: Wide angle lens' for crop sensor camera

I have been reading everyone's posts and researching every recommendation. Right now I am leaning towards the Tonkia 11-16mm f/2.8. From the online review I have been reading about this lens it is very sharp. Very little lens flaring, vignetting and barrel distortion. This seems like the ideal focal length and with a low constant aperture of f/2.8, perfect for shooting in low light situations.

However, I still feel like the lens manufacturers are missing out on the market for wide angle primes for crop sensor cameras. The wide angle zooms suggested in this post look great but nothing beets the sharpness of a good prime.

Thank you everyone for your input!

 

[Loswr]

Re: Re: Wide angle lens' for crop sensor camera

However, I still feel like the lens manufacturers are missing out on the market for wide angle primes for crop sensor cameras. The wide angle zooms suggested in this post look great but nothing beets the sharpness of a good prime.

That's probably because from the manufacturer's viewpoint, the APS-C market is a consumer market, and in recent years the consumer preference has been overwhelmingly in favor of zooms.

 

[Don Haines]

I have the Sigma 10-20... It seems to work ok for me. (I have also tried it on a 5D2....it's "interesting" to say the least).

17 or 18 mm is not wide angle enough for APS-C and landscapes... you can cheat by taking several pictures and stitching them together, but if you have people in the shot it just will not do... You really need 10mm...

I believe that most editing software (lightroom etc...) has the lens profile included so you can really correct for distortion.... ultra-wide angle lenses in a digital workflow are nowhere near the same as ultra-wide lenses with film.

 

[crasher8]

I too sold my 10-22 for more than the full retail I bought it for. Just goes to show how Canon retains value and how most folks value that certain lens as a great crop UWAZ.

 

[dhr90]

I think I would pick the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 in your position. I bought the Tokina 12-24 f4 about 3 months ago to go on a 7D and have been very happy with it, at the time the 11-16 was out of my price range, since then the price has dropped, considering upgrading to it myself given my desire to do some more astro photography. I tried the sigma 10-20, but just prefered the Tokina more.

 

[Marsu42]

My post continued: For a crop I would prefer 10-22 ...

Sure, I read that, I just wanted to strengthen the fact that on crop the 10-22 is not *preferable* to a 17-40L for a uwa, but the 10-22 is the *only* choice for the couple of reasons written above.

17 or 18 mm is not wide angle enough for APS-C and landscapes... you can cheat by taking several pictures and stitching them together, but if you have people in the shot it just will not do... You really need 10mm...

Imho "landscape" and "ultrawide" are not synonymous, my 17-40L is quite nice at least for what I shoot on crop. And 10mm less still don't capture the 360 degrees world around you and you still might end up doing panoramas which usually also works ok. The reason for uwa is more that you *want* the distortion for creativity, not to necessarily to "take it all in" as Ken Rockwell correctly remarked.

 

[Loswr]

17 or 18 mm is not wide angle enough for APS-C and landscapes... you can cheat by taking several pictures and stitching them together, but if you have people in the shot it just will not do... You really need 10mm...

Imho "landscape" and "ultrawide" are not synonymous, my 17-40L is quite nice at least for what I shoot on crop. And 10mm less still don't capture the 360 degrees world around you and you still might end up doing panoramas which usually also works ok. The reason for uwa is more that you *want* the distortion for creativity, not to necessarily to "take it all in" as Ken Rockwell correctly remarked.

+1

I often use my 70-300L or 100-400L for landscapes.

 

[wsgroves]

I have the Sigma 8-16. I really need to make a gallery here for it as I do not think there is one.