11-16mm vs 8-16mm

pchidell

pchidell

Messages
898
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking in to getting a wide angle lens for my 7d. I've considered all the options (including the 10-22mm and the Sigma 10-20s) but now I've narrowed it down to these:

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, or
Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6

I've never really owned an ultra wide angle so I'm really torn - is there such a big difference between 8mm and 11mm? And is the 11-16mm as sharp at f2.8 as the 8-16mm?

Thanks in advance! :thumbs:
 
8mm-11mm is quite a big difference, however 11mm is VERY wide, i don't really understand what advantage you would get from the 8mm. The 11-16 is known as the best DX wideangle lens better than nikon and canons own lens. If i had the choice it would be 11-16 all the way!
 
jacob12_1993 said:
The 11-16 is known as the best DX wideangle lens better than nikon and canons own lens.
Click to expand...

Not by me it isn't - it depends on the intended use. For anything where f2.8 isn't needed Canon's 10-22 is better (wider range, less flare, less CA).
 
hollis_f said:
Not by me it isn't - it depends on the intended use. For anything where f2.8 isn't needed Canon's 10-22 is better (wider range, less flare, less CA).
Click to expand...

However, the tokina is apparently sharper and comes with a hood which I believe the canon doesn't, the range isn't really an issue if you have a 17-50/55 standard lens as the range is still covered :)

Jake
 
Last edited:
If you use filters the Sigma is ruled out I'm afraid. If not, then the Sigma might just be the sharpest of the lot, or so the reviews suggest. I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
 
hollis_f said:
Can't see any difference in sharpness in mine - and I never use my Canon hood, it's too small and too big.
Click to expand...

on most of the reviews I read before buying there was no noticable difference re sharpness and it was the way the canon handles flare that put it ahead of the others

no regrets getting the canon
 
IK was going for the 11-16 but the limited range kinda ruled it out. A lens that goes all the way to 22/24 is a lot more versatile and you can almost get away with it being a walkaround lens but the 11-16 you will end up swapping it plenty of times for something longer.

My vote goes for the 10-24 Tamron though. Cheap and great IQ though I prefer my 12-24 Nikkor which I bought s/h over here and it is a fair bit better AF wise and I believe a bit sharper with nicer color rendition. I will give it is first fair bit of action this weekend in York, I will take both and make a nice comparison hopefully!
 
Personally I'd say 11-16 all the way. It takes filters which is a major difference.

And if you get a 1D or even full frame it will still be very useful, even if you lose a mm at the wide end. Sigma can't do that.
 
I'm really torn between those two as well. I'm swaying towards the Sigma as the goal for me is to get an ultra wide, and 3mm does make a big difference and the rest of the range is covered as well.

I hear the arguments of it is wide enough, but you can't get that extra width whilst you can zoom or change a lens up if you need longer...

Oh dilemmas.
 
Thanks this is really interesting subject. I need a bit of saving before being thinking about this!
 
Thanks for all your responses! I'm so torn... :bang:

Another (quite possibly crazy) alternative I have come accross is to use the Nikon 14-24mm with an adapter. I've started a thread, here, if you've got any views on this? Thanks again!
 
I went with a wide angle lens in the end. The 8mm is brilliant and really gives that bit extra that is not possible with the others. Pretty sharp as well.
 
I have a Tokina 11-16, its great.

I wouldn't recommend the Tamron 10-24 personally, I tried one once and found the IQ to be very questionable.
 
travellingcello said:
I have a Tokina 11-16, its great.

I wouldn't recommend the Tamron 10-24 personally, I tried one once and found the IQ to be very questionable.
Click to expand...

I had the Tokina and now I have the Tamron (and will buy the Tokina again soon but will also keep the Tamron)

I find the IQ of the Tamron quite good and, to be honest, I would not have thought of buying the Tokina again if I did not need f2.8
 
pchidell said:
I'm looking in to getting a wide angle lens for my 7d. I've considered all the options (including the 10-22mm and the Sigma 10-20s) but now I've narrowed it down to these:

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, or
Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6

I've never really owned an ultra wide angle so I'm really torn - is there such a big difference between 8mm and 11mm? And is the 11-16mm as sharp at f2.8 as the 8-16mm?

Thanks in advance! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Personally I would get the Tokina for ultimate flexibility- low light and the ability to use filters though I do like the Canon. The range doesn't bother me on the Tokina- I have a lens collection and don't change my mind every 5 seconds as to what distances I'm shooting so suits me but is something to consider

As for using the nikon 14-24, awesome lens and my mate has one on her 5d mkII but not really worthwhile sticking it on a crop camera- the field of view removes any real benefit over existing Canon lenses.

Not sure on the Sigma- many Sigmas look good in writing but my experience shows otherwise with too many Friday specials. I'm currently on a Sigma hiatus- just too much time/hassle/stress involved and negates the extra an OEM lens costs for me though will not doubt give them another chance sometime as I remain optimistic that they have to sort their QC out at some stage. However, having said that, if you truly want WIDE then 8mm without being a fisheye is pretty impressive.

Tokina or Canon depending on use would be my choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top