8-15 vs 10-22 newbe needs help!!

shaylou

shaylou

Messages
1,781
Name
Shayne
Edit My Images
No
I'm trying to finish up my lens kit and what I need/want is a wide angle lens. I have 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8. Mrk2 and really would like this last lens to be comparable.

I was thinking about the 10-22 but saw the 8-15 fish eye so now I'm not sure if it is even close to what I'm looking for or if I should just go with the 10-22. I understand the focal length is wider and it can give a rounded effect (for lack of a better term) but could someone please give me more detail about how these two lenses are compare.

Thank you.
 
The first big difference is the price, the Fisheye is over double the price. Also, the 10-22 is a EF-s lens. But the major comparison is the difference between a fisheye lens and an ulta wide.
(The fish eye is the next lens on my list, and so I'm a touch bias, also I cant use efs lens, another down point, but) The fisheye is a hugely creative lens, giving a squared then round effect. Hell, it'll even show off its own lens hood in frame, which annoys me a touch (you have to keep taking it off)
I believe the fisheye may not works as well on a crop sensor, but I can't comment as I've never used it on a crop.
If your looking for a wide angle lens, the 10-22mm is pretty much your best option, but if you've a bit of money burning a hole in your pocket, and you want a specific look, fisheye all the way.
 
The 10-22 is a rectilinear corrected lens (ie, attempts have been made to eliminate distortion). The 8-15 is uncorrected and will give you a rounded perspective where all points radiate away from the lens.
Only my opinion, but I think the 8-15 will be wasted on a crop body. I've tried mine on a 1D4 and it loses some of its "ooomph" despite being an excellent lens with amazingly little CA for such a short focal length

Bob
 
Given your current line up for 2.8 zooms, have you considered the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8?
 
I say go for the Canon 10-22, it's just as good as the 17-55/2.8 in my opinion. In fact those 2 lenses are the only EF-S ones I own.
 
vaizki said:
I say go for the Canon 10-22, it's just as good as the 17-55/2.8 in my opinion. In fact those 2 lenses are the only EF-S ones I own.
Click to expand...

One thing that sticks in the back of my mind is the possibility of going full frame in the future. At this point I'm not willing to give up my 17-55 so we will have to see what comes up to take its place. I'm sure I could sell any ef-s lens but I'm not sure if I want to have too many to unload when it comes time. It is starting to sound like I might need to do a lot more research on the fish eye on crop sensor to see if it's worth it.
 
shaylou said:
Yes I have and I was actually excited about it until I realized it had no I.s.
That's a deal killer in my book.
Click to expand...

No lens of that length has IS (does it?). You can hand-hold the Tokina at 1/15s no problem, if that's your thing.

If you want a fish-eye for your crop, the Samyang 8mm is the usual choice. You could get both lenses for half the price of the 8-15.
 
gridlock said:
No lens of that length has IS (does it?). You can hand-hold the Tokina at 1/15s no problem, if that's your thing.

If you want a fish-eye for your crop, the Samyang 8mm is the usual choice. You could get both lenses for half the price of the 8-15.
Click to expand...

Oh wow I completely overlooked that point. Time to reevaluate. What do you think about the tokina 8-15?
 
shaylou said:
Yes I have and I was actually excited about it until I realized it had no I.s.
That's a deal killer in my book.
Click to expand...

You could shoot away whilst roller skating over cobble stones at that FL and still get good shots.

Bob
 
lucky_13 said:
Don't forget the fact that UWA with IS do not exist.
Click to expand...

Nikon 16-35mm has VR; I have no idea if it is much good. That and D800 might be a nice package for OP if he still desperately wants IS.
 
daugirdas said:
Nikon 16-35mm has VR; I have no idea if it is much good. That and D800 might be a nice package for OP if he still desperately wants IS.
Click to expand...

I really want ultra wide because I already have a 17-55. I read some last night and a lot of people said the canon 10-22 is much sharper. Now I'm torn between a fast uwa and a sharp one. I really want both attributes in a lens but it seems as though I may have to settle.
 
shaylou said:
I really want ultra wide because I already have a 17-55. I read some last night and a lot of people said the canon 10-22 is much sharper. Now I'm torn between a fast uwa and a sharp one. I really want both attributes in a lens but it seems as though I may have to settle.
Click to expand...

Why? The tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 has a perfectly good reputation for image quality. The only thing you sacrifice is a bit of range compared to the other UWA's.
 
I like the canon 10-22 so much I have decided to keep a crop body just for that lens, I could do with the ~£1k I would get for it and the EF-s lens's I have but I love UWA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top