UWA for crop sensor

pamplemoose

pamplemoose

Messages
98
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

I have a quandary. The styles of photoghraphy that I love shooting most are cityscapes, urban buildings and then more traditional landscape work. Current kit is the 18-55 kit lens and the Canon 50 1.8

I've had a lot of fun with this so far but feel that an ultra-wide lens would let me be even more creative (so would a longer telephoto but that's way down the list). From reading the reviews (and I've read a lot) the Canon 10-22mm seems to come out top on sharpness but at a higher cost than the competition.

Does anyone have any recommendation in this area? I'll mostly be shooting in the day time and from a tripod so having stupidly low apertures isn't important. I will however need to fit filters to the lens and lens flare is one of my most important considerations. For that reason I've discounted the Tokina 2.8 lens unless the lens flare in real world use isn't as bad as reviews suggest.

What are the best alternatives? By budget is ideally £400 max. This would get me a used Canon 10-22 or a new version of pretty much al the competitors. Is the Canon worth the extra?
 
pamplemoose said:
Hi all

I have a quandary. The styles of photoghraphy that I love shooting most are cityscapes, urban buildings and then more traditional landscape work. Current kit is the 18-55 kit lens and the Canon 50 1.8

I've had a lot of fun with this so far but feel that an ultra-wide lens would let me be even more creative (so would a longer telephoto but that's way down the list). From reading the reviews (and I've read a lot) the Canon 10-22mm seems to come out top on sharpness but at a higher cost than the competition.

Does anyone have any recommendation in this area? I'll mostly be shooting in the day time and from a tripod so having stupidly low apertures isn't important. I will however need to fit filters to the lens and lens flare is one of my most important considerations. For that reason I've discounted the Tokina 2.8 lens unless the lens flare in real world use isn't as bad as reviews suggest.

What are the best alternatives? By budget is ideally £400 max. This would get me a used Canon 10-22 or a new version of pretty much al the competitors. Is the Canon worth the extra?
Click to expand...

I have the Canon. Well built, on par with some of my L-series lenses. Until you use a wide angle lens like this, you have NO idea of how much more scope it gives you.

I can't compare it to the competition. But I love the Canon 10-22. Infact I love it so much that I don't want to get rid of the 7d because of it...
 
Last edited:
I had a Canon 10-22 and also a Sigma 10-20 with my 40D

Canon 10-22 is a lovely lens but looking back on my pics - I''m happy with both.
 
Last edited:
I know I'll be in a minority of one but I was disappointed with the performance of my Canon 10-22mm.

I changed to a Sigma 12-24mm and it's a much better lens IMVHO with the advantage that it's a full frame lens if you have a film body too. You lose 2mm at the wide end and it does make a difference but the Sigma is well worth considering IMVHO.
 
woof woof said:
I know I'll be in a minority of one but I was disappointed with the performance of my Canon 10-22mm.

I changed to a Sigma 12-24mm and it's a much better lens IMVHO with the advantage that it's a full frame lens if you have a film body too. You lose 2mm at the wide end and it does make a difference but the Sigma is well worth considering IMVHO.
Click to expand...

Wow. I went to the Nikon 14-24 for the better IQ from the Sigma 12-24...I'm actually surprised because I'd put the 12-24 fx as equal to the Sig 10-20 on dx IQ wise....I'm not a Canon shooter but I've heard great things about the 10-22

But then again, everyone loves to rave about their newest piece of gear, especially if it was expensive...
 
I've the Sigma 10-20mm and am pleased with the results I get with it.

If you look at the flickr account below, these were taken with the Sigma lens for my mate...
 
sk66 said:
Wow. I went to the Nikon 14-24 for the better IQ from the Sigma 12-24...I'm actually surprised because I'd put the 12-24 fx as equal to the Sig 10-20 on dx IQ wise....I'm not a Canon shooter but I've heard great things about the 10-22

But then again, everyone loves to rave about their newest piece of gear, especially if it was expensive...
Click to expand...

AFAIK the Nikon is a very good lens. The Sigma has its issues on FF but that's hardly surprising considering that it was the first and widest of the type but on APS-C the corner nasties are obviously not an issue.

What I didn't like about the Canon was the distortion and vignetting and these things are just not issues with the Sigma on APS-C but I do appreciate that such things are easily corrected post capture.

There's also the Sigma 8-16mm.
 
Dont forget the Tokina 12 - 24 f4 or the 11 - 16 2.8 UWA
 
If you want an UWA then get the 10-22, it really is the best.

What sort of filters will you want to use?
  • Sticking a UV in front of it would be silly - you're paying for the best flare-resistance in its class, you don't want to ruin that by sticking a flare-generator in front of it.
  • Polarizers don't play too well with UWA lenses. Not if you're using them to enhance the sky as you'll get an uneven effect which can be a pain. There are ways to minimise the effect, and they still work well for getting rid of reflections, but they do need some care.
  • If you're using ND Grads then you'll have to use a special, low-profile, filter holder to avoid vignetting.
 
hollis_f said:
If you want an UWA then get the 10-22, it really is the best.

What sort of filters will you want to use?
  • Sticking a UV in front of it would be silly - you're paying for the best flare-resistance in its class, you don't want to ruin that by sticking a flare-generator in front of it.
  • Polarizers don't play too well with UWA lenses. Not if you're using them to enhance the sky as you'll get an uneven effect which can be a pain. There are ways to minimise the effect, and they still work well for getting rid of reflections, but they do need some care.
  • If you're using ND Grads then you'll have to use a special, low-profile, filter holder to avoid vignetting.
Click to expand...

I'd heard bad things about using CPLs for skies on UWA lenses but I mostly use them for cutting down on reflections.

I'm thinking I'm just gonna get the Canon. All the test data I've seen indicates it as being the sharpest overall and from the sounds of it that's backed up by actual real world results too. It's a lot of money for a non-L lens though but I guess if I ever go full frame (which I will one day) I can probably get most of the money back selling it second hand.
 
greenoak said:
Dont forget the Tokina 12 - 24 f4 or the 11 - 16 2.8 UWA
Click to expand...

In my experience (of these, the Nikon 12-24mm, the Canon and the Sigma) the Tokinas pack the most punch for the money - brilliant lenses in both build and optical quality. Of the two I'd plump for the more expensive 11-16mm just for the faster max. aperture but if i had to use the 12-24mm then I wouldn't be unhappy at all.
 
Canon 10-22mm - amazing lens I may list mine for sale soon (£400), comes with about 10 months warranty from CEX
 
As for flare, you'll get it on most wide lenses to some degree or other. Yes, some are better than others but you can work around flare. It's very dependant on the angle of the sun obviously and TBH, most of the flare that really intruded and ruined a shot experienced could be easily controlled by flagging the lens with a hand out of shot.

Out of all the wide lenses I've owned, the Sigma 14mm was by far the worst - massive hexagonal flare that was nearly impossible to control. Of the wide zooms my fave was probably the 11-16mm because the flare was well-controlled and when it did appear in shot it was clear and prominent so you could then make small movements to lens position (or flag it) and you could clearly see it disappear. Or do some light PPing. The others lenses weren't bad - the Sigma 10-20mm was the worst of the bunch I found but not horrific by any means.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Of the wide zooms my fave was probably the 11-16mm because the flare was well-controlled
Click to expand...

You've got to be joking. The 11-16 is really bad for flare, bad enough so that mine never gets used outside in daylight. It's especially bad compared to the Canon 10-22, which is one of the most flare-resistant lenses on the market.

Edit: But people don't have to take my word for it. Photography on the Net have various forums where people can post examples of the best images they take with various lenses. That's the best - not any old rubbish. One would think that they'd try to avoid or remove annoying flare. But, in response to a thread similar to this one, I looked through one week's worth of posts. And came up with these examples -

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=15250266&postcount=3604

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=15285272&postcount=3609

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=15299078&postcount=3611

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=15299385&postcount=3612

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=15333588&postcount=3615

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16035062&postcount=3781
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
You've got to be joking. The 11-16 is really bad for flare, bad enough so that mine never gets used outside in daylight....
Click to expand...

No, I'm not joking. Yes, it suffers flare as most wides do, but as said in the post, I found the flare to be easily dealt with because it generally manifested itself as a clearly defined hotspot and not those layers-upon-layers of aperture-shaped ghosting.
 
specialman said:
No, I'm not joking. Yes, it suffers flare as most wides do
Click to expand...

I've used both the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 10-22 and neither are anywhere near as bad as the 11-16.

But, again, I implore anybody who doubts me to check out the lens sample threads for the 11-16 and the 10-22 on PotN.
 
Last edited:
I can only offer my opinions as someone who worked day-in, day-out with the 11-16mm, finding it THE best pound-for-pound wideangle for crop sensors.

As for flare, again I can only offer up what I saw in my shots - this is pretty typical of what I found when shooting contre jour...

Screen-Shot-2013-07-17-at-13_14_15.jpg


I like the flare pattern - it works for me, maybe not for others though - and the only other element of flare is highlighted and is something that is quite easy to clone out. Maybe my expectations are much lower than other people's but seeing as this got plastered across a magazine DPS the minute the editor saw it kind of says something about the quality of the image...
 
specialman said:
In my experience (of these, the Nikon 12-24mm, the Canon and the Sigma) the Tokinas pack the most punch for the money - brilliant lenses in both build and optical quality. Of the two I'd plump for the more expensive 11-16mm just for the faster max. aperture but if i had to use the 12-24mm then I wouldn't be unhappy at all.
Click to expand...

Agree I went for the Tokina 11-16mm a wonderful lens really sharp
I havent found the flare to be a problem as Pat said its easily controlled:)
 
hollis_f said:
Yes, that would be easy to clone out - this would be near impossible - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16035062&postcount=3781

And the 10-22 just doesn't flare -

/SNIP/
Click to expand...

I can't open that POTN link - I'm not a member so that's probably the reason.

Like Reddragon, I can see flare in the 10-22mm shot, although as he states, it's pretty insubstantial so would be an easy fix in PP. Wonder what difference there would be with a full sun in shot...

Also, agreed that in that comparison shot from the 11-16mm, the green flare will be very hard to correct. But I don't think that's a cut-and-dry case for dismissing the Tokina... the exposure isn't bang-on so we can't actually see what the main flare looks like.

Out of interest maybe shots stopped down a little (as will probably the intended use of the OP) might be of use to him, maybe f/8 or around there. It'd also be interesting to see what effect filters and a CP has on the flare - never really thought about the latter myself.


pamplemoose said:
...Is the Canon worth the extra?
Click to expand...

I didn't even see this last part of the original post - I don't think it is. Like Nikon's 12-24mm f/4, it's the lens to buy if you have the budget but totally honesty and impartially, I think any minor gripes about the 3rd-party (Sigma/Tokina) can easily be offset but the cost difference. I also believe the Canon, for the price, is not on a par with the Tokinas or the Nikon in terms of overall build quality. They have a far more workmanlike feel to the materials and focus/zoom motions. Obviously, if it's not being swung around, getting knocked and bumped about then that's less of a consideration.

OP, you might also want to look at what effect fitting a filter (or filters) has in terms of vignetting - you can get super-slim filters that help negate this but it's obviously something to bare in mind. Off the top of my head I could get away with a standard depth CP on the Tokina 12-24mm without vignetting but if I wanted to keep a UV on as well, it had to be a super-slim design. On the 11-16mm I just had a CP on, as a CP and slim UV caused vignetting. I expect that to be the same on the 10-22mm at the wide setting, although the slightly different crop factor on Canon (1.6x as opposed to 1.5x on Nikon) might counter this.
 
Last edited:
I use a Sigma 12-24mm on my K-5II and have to say I find it sharp enough. I recently bought one for the 7D because of how well it does on the Pentax crop and also because it is full frame compatible.

Couple taken Saturday at Yeovilton.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top