Help with a wide angle lens choice please?

feek

feek

Herbert
Messages
3,582
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,
I have a problem. I want to buy either a 12-24mm or a Tokina 11-16mm. The reviews all say go with the Tokina for the price and having 2.8 across the range. My question is; if you are taking wide angle shots, why would you need a shallow depth of field, i mean wouldn't it be mainly used for landscapes, so you wouldn't be shooting at 2.8 very often. Could someone enlighten me as to why I shouldn't go for a cheaper lens in the 3.5-4 range. Any help or advice greatfuly accepted along with any recommendations. Rob
 
This was shot at f2.8 on a 14mm Full Frame camera and I find you wont get a shallow dept of field when shooting at that focal length as it is just to wide it just means you can shot faster in low light with f2.8. Could be wrong though. :thinking:


dsc2766.jpg
 
Thanks for the image/example. I viewed these with awe! The set was brilliant especially with your mate posing. Rob
 
Sigma 10-20mm or the Canon 10-22mm. I've had both and prefer the Canon.
 
Siggy 10-20mm for me also - Can't see why you need constant F2.8 on a lens like this, and if you had a situation where you needed the extra stop just bump the ISO up a stop instead...
 
Thanks for the replies guys-still in two minds as to which lens to get-shots with the 10-20mm are great. will have to mull it over. Rob
 
The thing about the Tokina 11-16 is that it is sharp, and f/2.8 is always appealing (even if it's actually not very useful in this instance). But this is no more than you would expect for a lens that is almost a prime - the zoom range is tiny. A 10-20 or 10-22 range is far more useful. I certainly wouldn't swap my Canon 10-22 for the Tokina.
 
Cheers Hoppy, I hadn't thought about the small range of the 11-16mm:bonk: Thinking about it 10-20mm seems a better choice. Thanks for the advice. Rob
 
I had the Canon 10-22mm for a while, and I found that I would always end up at 10mm despite the fact it was too wide for the majority of landscapes.

I tired the Sigma but the lens just didn't feel as good and while OK the IQ was not as good as the Canon. Then I tried the Tokina 12-24. Build quality and image quality are a step above both the Sigma and the Canon.
 
Sigma 10-20 for me virtully glued to my 40D at the moment:

Couple of examples

IMG_1369Framed.jpg


IMG_1159.jpg
 
Most people with an UWA lens tend to wind it out as wide as it will go, so the short range of the Tokina 11-16 is less likely to be a problem than you'd think.

I've got one and its stunningly sharp wide open, and it may a well be a 11mm prime for the amout of times its been away from 11mm :LOL:
 
If you are looking for a third party UWA there really are only two choices, the Tokinas, both are now a similar price and almost identically built (from the outside) so you need to decide between longer range (12-24) and slightly sharper and a stop faster with less range (11-16). Bearing in mind the extra stop will help greatly indoors (and also, generally a lens will be sharper if it opens wider) and if you have a kit lens it will start at around 18mm anyway so there won't be a gap.

Although the Sigma is ok, it is not up there with the Tokinas in either build quality wise or to a lesser extent sharpness.
 
Thank you all for taking the time to reply to my question:clap:. I'm torn between all three and I need to have a good think what I want to shoot with it.:thinking: Will let you know what I decide, although my pictures won't improve.:bang: Rob
 
+1 for the Tokina 11-16, mine is stuck to my 50D since i got it. It's my first ever UWA lens so I have no experience with the slightly longer 10-20/10-22.

 
What fitting are we talking? I'm well pleased with my Nikon 12-24mm f/4 that I bought off Taz; super-sharp, well made and lightweight.

Only other option optically would be the Tokina 12-24 or the Tokina 11-16, great value for their asking prices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top