Advice - Which wide angle lens??

markgriff

markgriff

Suspended / Banned
Messages
54
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
The lens I'm really missing from my bag at the moment is a wide angle lens and I was subsequently considering the following.

Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 AT-X PRO DX AF
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM Lens

There's a big difference in price between the cheapest (Sigma) and the most expensive (Canon) with the Tokina falling somewhere in between.

I've read some great reviews on the Sigma and was just wondering would there be any noticable difference in image quality from the extra expense of the other lenses? :shrug:

Many thanks,

Mark
 
The Sigma 10-20 and Canon EF-S 10-22 are both excellent lenses, I owned a Sigma 10-20 for a while and used an EF-S 20-22 a bit and there's next to nothing between them! I've never used any Tokina lenses but they used to be known for bad sharpness and lots of chromatic aberration.
 
Normally I like to have everything in my bag with the Canon brand on it, it's daft but just me.

The exception I have made is the Sigma, I have heard nothing but praise for the lens and have seen some stunning shots from it...

I now have one in my bag although not really had the chance to play with it in anger...

Last shot I took with it for fun was...
tiger7.jpg
 
People considering a wide often seem to forget the Sigma 12-24mm, a shame as I think it's wonderful.
 
I've got the canon 10-22 and love it when I remember to use it. Saw it at the duty free at about £728!
 
woof woof said:
People considering a wide often seem to forget the Sigma 12-24mm, a shame as I think it's wonderful.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Great lens, along with the Siggy 15-30mm it's a forgotten hero.

Tokina 12-24 is a good option too.

Canon is very good but pricey compared the 3rd party alternatives. Both the Tokinas would be my choice over the Siggy 10-20mm any day.
 
I've the Sigma 10-20 and can't fault it, although if I'd had the money at the time I would have gone for the 12-24 as I've read some reviews that the IQ is slightly ahead of the 10-20.
 
Another vote for the Sigma 10-20, cant fault it.

Ive got the £900 16-35 now (as the 10-20's DX) but theres nothing in it really.

Sig 10-20 is sharp and works, with wide lenses not much else to talk about really.
 
I bought the Siggy as it was a lot cheaper than the Canon alternative. Went and tried it out and just thought it was soft - Went back the next day and swapper it for the Canon (plus a few ££'s!!) - Then decided UWA just wasn't my thing.

If I wanted a UWA now on a cropped body, I'd get the Tokina, there's some great reviews about it.
 
Thanks for all your responses, NissanMan I take it you were the right side of a fence when you took that photo!:D

I hadn't considered the Sigma 12-24mm, I guess that's because I seem to have seen a lot more reviews on the 10-22mm. Just looking on WHE, the 12-24mm is even more expensive than the Canon 10-22mm which suprised me?
I guess that shows what a good price the Sigma 10-22mm is!

The reason I put the Tokina in the pot was after purchasing their 50-135mm f2.8 lens which I've been really impressed with, producing excellent sharp results. This made me consider other third party lenses too. With the wide angle 11-16mm having a fixed f2.8 aperture, it seemed a good buy as well.

Specialman - What was your reason for prefering both Tokina options over the Sigma?

Thanks,

Mark
 
I've used several 10-20mm Siggys on Canon bodies (20D/30D/40D) and just wasn't impressed; the three I used all had varying degrees of softness, especially around the edges, even when stopped down, which just didn't impress me. Of course, UWA lenses will generally have some degree of softness around the corners but the Siggys were just too much for me. Tried the 15-30mm and it was like a different world, as was the Canon 10-22mm.

I use Nikon now and went with the Nikon 12-24 f/4 because I got a good deal on a used one (£450 is too good to overlook) but I tested both the 11-16 and 12-24 Tokina and if I were buying new, those would be my first choice any day; sharp all the way through, well made, cheap and with constant max apertures of f/2.8 and f/4 respectively, an important point for me. The changing max aperture of the Siggy was another black mark in my book.

I know a lot of folk on here rate the Sigma 10-20 (don't know if the new version is better than the old one) and they obviously get good results, but for me, it couldn't hold a candle to to the competition. :)
 
Mark - I think that the Sigma 12-24mm might be expensive as it's FF. It really is a remarkable lens. The widest non fish eye FF zoom available for SLR's as far as I know.
 
Problem with the Sigma 12-24 is you can't fit filters on the front...

Out of those three I'd pick the Tokina, having had the Tokina 12-24 for a couple of years I know it is a superb lens to use (almost identical construction) and it's apparently sharper than the Tokina 12-24. The only down side is the short range, which isn't much of an issue if you have another lens starting a the 17-18mm range.

Personally I don't rate the 10-20 very highly either. I think one of the big reasons for it's success over the other third party lenses (from Tamron and Tokina) is due to it being made by Sigma, the largest third party lens maker.
 
You can't go wrong with Tokina (either 11-16 or 12-24). Both are partially useful on full frame too.

I tried Sigma and it was a horror story in comparison (if you care about sharpness).
 
markgriff said:
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Click to expand...

Sexy lens.

All shot with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (ignore the f/3.5 version of this lens) on either a D200 or D300s (both 1.5x crop bodies).

4498295558_07426415a9.jpg


4248751722_1cfa25a547.jpg


4696709061_dd3f178785.jpg
 
"Problem with the Sigma 12-24 is you can't fit filters on the front..."

Obviously not...

IMG_0068-01-c1.jpg
 
That's a tube with a regular Cokin P holder on the end of it? Is that not going to appear in the shot?

Even without sticking a tube on the end of the 10-20mm, I can't go wider than 14mm with a regular Cokin P holder without it showing up in the image (I haven't tried the "wide angle" Cokin P holder yet).
 
Try sticking a screw in filter on then. ;)

And as kaouthia said, surely that will be visible in shot, especially considering you can accidently get your feet in frame with it.
 
Photodiva said:
I've got the canon 10-22 and love it when I remember to use it. Saw it at the duty free at about £728!
Click to expand...

I bought mine off eBay and can't fault it. Glad I didn't pay £700+ for
it. I was quite shocked at the price. I'll have to revalue my insurance!
 
The Canon is superb in corner sharpness and colour rendition. It is also a tough little fella with a nice hard coating that wont mark like the Sigma. If you have the cash then get a Canon. They tend to hold value slightly better as the used market isnt quite so full of them compaired to the Sigma.

I've never used the 10-20 Sigma at length, but i know a few people that own it and produce some lovely shots with it. As ever with Sigma there are good and bad ones, the good ones tend to be superb.
 
Tube??? It's part of the lens cap...:bang: and yes, you can use screw in filters with it :bang:

The Siggy 12-24mm is a FF lens but on APS-C you can't see your feet when you use it. If you use a slimline holder or just screw directly on you can use filters from ablout 18mm, not ideal I admit but I posted a picture because I do get a bit tired of people who've never tried the lens, Cokin P or specifically the slimline holder saying that you can't use filters on it when clearly you can. :)
 
I never said that you can't use filters with it, but you can't use filters with it wider than 18mm (64° on your 20D) , you said it yourself.

I wasn't aware of any filter issues with the 12-24mm when I bought my 10-20mm. The 10-20mm was simply the superior lens in my experience, so I bought one. Being able to go as wide as 14mm (80° on a Nikon DX body) even with a regular Cokin P holder, or as wide as 10mm (99°) with a Cokin P WA holder or screw-in filter just means I can use the lens for that which it was intended; extreme wide angles. :)
 
We sell so many Sigma 10-20s and I also think its Sigma's no 1.

Kaouthia said to avoid the 3.5 Version which I normally would agree with but Sigma have it on Promo now so its a lot cheaper at £449. Worth thinking about.

Stuart
 
How does that price compare to the f/4-5.6 currently?
 
No, you didn't say that you can't use filters with the Siggy but someone else did.

I'm not looking for a fight, I just want to correct the oft repeated here myth that you can't use filters with the Siggy 12-24mm.

There are some excellent wide choices available and the Siggy 12-24mm might not be the best option for every APS-C user but for anyone with a FF camera it certainly makes a very tempting (and widest) option.
 
Aye, if you've got a full frame camera, the 12-24 doesn't look too bad, although I'd still probably use the 10-20mm and a DX body myself.

At least in the case of Nikon, 10mm on a D300s (99°) is wider than 18mm on a D3s (90°) and both bodies are the same resolution.
 
I had a Sigma 10-20 when I used APS-C format. It was a good lens, delivering sharp images, with a very wide field of view. Colours I found slightly warm and the vibrance of the colours I'd say was average. The canon 50mm f/1.8 'nifty fifty' (or nasty fifty, if you like) gave better colours and the f/1.4 version of said lens was even better still. In fact I'd say the Sigma's colours were about as good as if not a touch better than Canon's 18-55 kit lens. I know they aren't very 'fair' comparisons but there you go, it gives an idea. The real problem with the 10-20 is vignetting.

IMG_8727_sb.jpg


Wemyss Bay railway station - you can see the light falling off in the corners, and it looked even worse if there was a bland background. John's pictures above actually show the vignetting as well so I suspect it wasn't just my copy of the lens. Sharpness was impressive though even wide open and I could take photographs of an entire newspaper spread and happily read it.

I only sold it because I found the focal length not to be very useful, after the initial 'OMG I can photograph half the world with this' honeymoon period wore off.
 
woof woof said:
No, you didn't say that you can't use filters with the Siggy but someone else did.

I'm not looking for a fight, I just want to correct the oft repeated here myth that you can't use filters with the Siggy 12-24mm.

There are some excellent wide choices available and the Siggy 12-24mm might not be the best option for every APS-C user but for anyone with a FF camera it certainly makes a very tempting (and widest) option.
Click to expand...

That was me, and as you pointed out you can't really use square filters on most of it's length on APS-C so even less on FF. I looked into it when looking to buy a wide angle which is where the multiple reviews pointed out the filter issue, they also pointed out the worse IQ than the 10-20 and others. The extra price put me off however. :)
 
I had the canon, thought I'd try the Tokina due to the 2.8

Didn't really like it in the end, not a particularly nice lens to look at either.

Go with the Canon.
 
"they also pointed out the worse IQ than the 10-20 and others."

How odd and not my experience at all. Having owned both the Canon 10-22mm and the Siggy 12-24mm I find the Siggy has more accurate colour and much less distortion and much less vignetting. The lack of distortion and vignetting alone make it worthwhile to me even without the FF issue.

You can only speak as you find but I wont be swapping my 12-24mm for anything anytime soon and although the cost could be an issue for some I wish I'd tried one before buying the Canon :love: Having seen some shots taken with the cheaper Siggy APS-C lens I wouldn't want to swap for that either. Even on screen the vignetting is often visible and that's just not something that the 12-24mm suffers from, although it can add to some pictures.
 
It makes sense vignetting will be lower, that's standard with FF lenses used on a crop body.

I'd love to try the 12-24 on a FF body, just don't think it suits my needs on a crop body. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top