UWA for Canon again

topcatproduction

topcatproduction

Messages
500
Edit My Images
Yes
I know this question has been asked loads before and have read most of the posts I could find, but not many with the lenses I'm looking at.

I am planning on getting a 17-55 soon for my walk around lens, and would like a UWA as well. I want something that is well built, will hold its value and produce really sharp images. For that reason I believe the Canon 10-22 beats the Sigma 10-20 so I am probably not going to be after the Sigma, though to confirm- how does the IQ compare the the Canon? I originally wanted a Tokina 11-16 but want some more opinions first, the only problem with the Tokina is the range, I know I have 17mm sorted already, but it still means changing lenses a lot more than if I had say the Canon up to 20mm+, if you see what I mean!

So I'm considering the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 11-16, the f/2.8 would be good and it is supposed to be incredibly sharp, and a similar price, though the range isn't great.

I have heard about a Tokina 11-17 too, what's it like? Any other good suggestions?
 
Tokina 11-16 and Canon 17-55 will make a perfect combo (or 12-24 / 10-22 and 24-???). Stop thinking about the range of individual lens as 18-270 will eventually come to mind.

Tokina 10-17 is a semi fisheye zoom. Most of them end up on ebay pretty soon. Perhaps they are the best for under water photography if anything.
 
"Canon 10-22 beats the Sigma 10-20"

If it's any help at all...

I used to have a Canon 10-22mm and I now have a Sigma 12-24mm which I think is better than the Canon in every possible way, it'll work on my film body too and on a full frame digital which the Canon wont.
 
Will be keeping a close eye on this thread myself. I'm planning on hiring out a Canon 10-22mm this summer for a few holiday trips, looking to purchase a UWA permanently towards the end of the year.

There's also the Tamron 10-24mm to consider, but I don't know what the reviews are like, it is considerably cheaper than the Sigma/Tokina & Canon, so I can only suspect the quality will be suffering a bit..
 
I was on the verge of getting the Tokina 11-16 until a head to head comparison between the Tokina and the Canon 10-22 on Lightrules site pointed out something i had never considered before. Minimum Focus Distance. The Canon can focus a lot closer than the tokina and so it can exaggerate the 'perspective distortion' (near objects are huge and distant objects are tiny) which is probably the main reasons to get a UWA in the 1st place imho.

Sigma and Canon have the same Minimum Focus Distance btw.
 
I bought the canon 10-22mm, the short focus distance is awesome and the resale value seems to hold very well compared to the sigma and tamron offerings.
 
I should be receiving my Tokina tomorrow. Regarding the minimum focus distance then I think the Canon is 24cm and the Tokina 30cm so not that much in it.

I think both hold their value very well.

I'm told the Canon is better regarding flare.

If you decide on the Tokina the best price in the UK I found new was around £465 at Jacobs using a voucher and quidco. I paid £365 second hand. The Canon would have been at least £100 more second hand and the difference should buy me some filters.
 
If you can afford it, buy the Canon, it is better.

Which is exactly what all the threads of here say, so its not really a different situation :D
 
I tried a few before I bought the Canon 10-22.

IMO sharper than the Sigma, though I hadn't tried the Tokina 11-16. All very good lenses though, just be careful you don't get a soft Sigma if thats what you opt for.

Another advantage of the Canon is that its fully compatible with Canon's DPP software, in terms of lens corrections. Having said that, the lens is so good you don't really need the software!
 
Christ I'm having a dilema now, I would like to order a UWA tomorrow for a friday morning delivery, and not sure between the sigma 10-20 or tokina 11-16 now! The Sigma is well over £100 cheaper and after looking at loads of pics on here people are obviously enjoying using it with good results!!!

Is the f/2.8 really worth the extra money? I don't think I'll be using it a lot and thinking now that the extra range and money saving could be more beneficial....

:shake: decisions!! :bonk:
 
electron said:
I thought so too until i saw THIS
Click to expand...

ever heard about hyperfocal distance? at 10mm is doesn't take much stopping down to get absolutely everything sharp in focus.
 
Normally in a thread like this I would be recommending the Tokina 12-24, better than the Sigma and cheaper than the Canon. However you can afford the Canon so I would go with that, unless you do a lot of internal shots or hand held low light, in which case the 11-16 would be better.

The 12-24 is practically a no no due to starting at 17mm with the 17-55 however the 11-16 would also give you a nice f/2.8 from 11mm all the way to 55mm.

However from your last post and a choice between the 11-16 and the 10-20 I would choose the 11-16 every time, yes it probably is worth the extra £100 and the lack of longer focal length isn't much of an issue if you have the 17-55 as well. :)
 
I just got the canon 10-22 yesterday, superb build quality, and excellent glass and results from what I have done so far.

I nearly went with the sigma, but after many many review finding quality control problems with them and motors failing, I didnt want to risk it, it put me off quite a lot. People reviewing new lenses they had recieved from them due to them being soft, and each one resulting in different faults in different areas of the lens.
 
I received my Tokina 11-16 yesterday and am very pleased. The build quality is great and much better than the Canon, it was about £100 cheaper (second hand). I can't compare the results but every review I see rates it very highly. One point with regards the f2.8 is that it lets lots of light in for focussing no matter what aperture the picture is taken at and I think this could be a major plus for early morning and late evening shots.

That said, I think they're probably both very good lenses and I'd be happy with either. I decided against the Sigma though as I don't want that doubt in my mind as to whether I should have got the Tokina or Canon.
 
I love my Canon 10-22mm. It's sharp across the range, minimal distortion, VERY flare resistant, fast focusing...perfect.
 
daugirdas said:
ever heard about hyperfocal distance? at 10mm is doesn't take much stopping down to get absolutely everything sharp in focus.
Click to expand...

I never thought about that! Just to clarify, once i get focus as close to the subject as possible, i stop down more and can go even closer and the subject will be still be in focus,right?
 
Here's how I see it:

If you're going to be doing a lot of low light, handheld stuff where you need f/2.8 and the 17-55 won't be wide enough, get the Tokina.

If you're going to be using it for landscapes, and using on a tripod most of the time, get the Sigma 10-20.

If you can afford the Canon 10-22, which is almost definitely a better lens, (but perhaps not by the amount extra you'd pay on top of the Sigma), then you might as well go for it, and you'll be lusting after it anyway if not!

I have a Tamron 11-18, and I'm always wishing it was a little longer at the long end, so I think 11-16 would be quite restricting. Hope this helps (unless you've already ordered!)

Chris
 
Personally I think the 11-16 is perfect if you have a fast standard length lens like the 17-55 IS or the Tamron/Sigma 17-50s as it gives you fast apertures from 11-55 and super sharpness in that range as well.

Sigma I don't rate highly and would only recommend if you NEED 10mm and can't afford the 10-22 and if you have a lens starting at over 20mm I would recommend either the Tokina 12-24 or 10-22 if you can afford it.

I think the one positive the sigma has is that in comparison to most other wide angles it is light so for someone really needs lightweight then the Sigma is the one to go for (due to its poorer build quality).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top