Ultra Wide Angle (for Canon crop)

lucky_13

lucky_13

Suspended / Banned
Messages
624
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi I'm finding my self more and more in situations that would need the use of an UWA lens as my 18-55 isn't wide enough for some applications and I like the way some photographs look when taken with a UWA lens (something I thought I would never get into but here I am wishing I had one). I would like to use it for light painting,indoor photography, buildings, landscape,video, low light situations etc. I normally shoot with my 18-55 3-4 shots and stitch them into a panorama in photoshop as I love panoramas. I've narrowed it down to the following
Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 now this would be ideal for video too as it has a fixed aperture.
Tokina 12-24 f/4
Ps; not looking into going FF.
 
I had the Sigma 10-20 on a 400d and absolutely loved it to bits. Good value for money, sharp stopped down a little (and sharp enough wide open), never experienced any of the sigma quality control doom and & gloom that is automatically trotted out as soon as Sigma is mentioned. I'd love to buy the 12-24mm for my 5d2.
 
I never liked the Canon 10-22mm. I got some vignetting and some softness and overall my Siggy 12-24mm is soooo much better, no vignetting on APS-C and sharper but of course it starts at 12 and not 10mm. The Siggy works well on full frame though and is worth thinking about if you have a 35mm film body kicking about or are thinking of going full frame digital sometime. Seems a lot better built than the Canon too, has a quality feel whilst I thought that the Canon always looked and felt a bit cheap, despite it's price.
 
I've the Sigma 10-20mm and I'm very pleased with it.

I don't use mine an awful lot, so wasn't worth the extra expense of the Canon
 
Tokina. That lens was an absolute joy to own and use on my old camera. I just wish I could have taken it to my new camera, I'm not as impressed with the 17-40L. The tokina had a nice weight to it and just felt really good to hold.
 
I was in the same situation recently and went for the Tokina 11-16 to complement my tamron 17-50
Excellent lens really sharp and well made :clap:
 
Expect to pay around £200 more for the Canon than the Sigma in a used market. I can't remember how much the two are new.

I plumped for the Sigma over the Canon as i could not justify the difference in price and have no plans to go full frame.

I use the Sigma all the time and it is always in the bag when going out no matter what i shoot.

Here is a link to my Flickr and pictures taken with the Sigma 10-20mm
 
MG TF 135 said:
Expect to pay around £200 more for the Canon than the Sigma in a used market. I can't remember how much the two are new.

I plumped for the Sigma over the Canon as i could not justify the difference in price and have no plans to go full frame.

I use the Sigma all the time and it is always in the bag when going out no matter what i shoot.

Here is a link to my Flickr and pictures taken with the Sigma 10-20mm
Click to expand...

Canon's no good on FF as it's only an EF-S mount, only for crop. Do u have the 4-5.6 one or the 3.5 one?
 
Does any one have any experience with the sigma 8-16mm ?
 
lucky_13 said:
Canon's no good on FF as it's only an EF-S mount, only for crop. Do u have the 4-5.6 one or the 3.5 one?
Click to expand...

Oh yes, i forgot that. I was also testing another lens that was compatible with ff. So many lenses got myself confused.

I have the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. Cracking lens.
 
The Sigma 10-20 is very good for the price, but the Canon is better. The Tokina 11-16 is excellent but has a very limited range. I played with all three, but purchased the Sigma due to cost, plus the fact that for me it gets used very infrequently. Doing a quick sort of my 2011 album shows just 8 photos taken under 17mm, so the lens is more of a luxury than necessity. The 17-55mm range has over 350 pictures by comparison.

Unless you need ultra-wide for specific tasks, you don't really need ultra-wide.
 
Last edited:
+1 on the Cann 10-22. I love mine.
 
I would recommend a google search as there is lots out there comparing the two.

I personally read loads about the two and went the Sigma route, from the reviews the f4-5.6 seems to fair better than the fixed aperture version.

There is obviously a big price difference new but don't discount second hand, you can pick the sigma up for around the £250 region.
 
dhracer said:
:thinking: the canon 10-22 is no good on ff either...
Click to expand...

Neither is the Sigma 10-20.

Tried both. I found the sigma soft wide open down one side. Stopped down a bit it was great.

However, I bought the Canon as I found it soooooo sharp, pin sharp and is very solidly built (despite what woof woof found with his defective copy).

The Canon IMO is the best option, but whether you can justify the extra price is a personal thing... The Sigma is still very good but the 10-20 Siggy seems to suffer from reported QC issues more than a lot of lenses.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Neither is the Sigma 10-20.

Tried both. I found the sigma soft wide open down one side. Stopped down a bit it was great.

However, I bought the Canon as I found it soooooo sharp, pin sharp and is very solidly built (despite what woof woof found with his defective copy).

The Canon IMO is the best option, but whether you can justify the extra price is a personal thing... The Sigma is still very good but the 10-20 Siggy seems to suffer from reported QC issues more than a lot of lenses.
Click to expand...

The sigma does suffer from problems but it's easy to spot if you are buying used get the seller to take some pictures and send you the full res Jpg (brick walls would be great for this) then check the edges of the frame on both sides. Simple and save yourself £200.
If its new perform the same test yourself if it doesn't look weight send it back.

Most of the reviews for any of these lens doesn't show much in it. I went for the sigma to go with the rest of my L glass because I couldn't see me using it that much and it's cracking if you get a good copy
 
I compared the sigma and canon lens, bought the canon. It focusses quicker, is pin sharp at 10mm and I picked mine up second hand for £300
 
Canon for me too!
Got to admit though, don't use it too much.
 
Have the Canon and love it although I've heard good things about the others too. Know a couple of people with the Sigma but their variable quality control puts me off as I've been burned twice so make sure you can test it before committing. Also, everything I've read suggests the older f/3.5-4.5 one is optically superior to the newer f/3.5.
 
I can not comment on the other lenses as i have not tired them.
But i bought the canon 2nd hand on these forums a few years back (around £330 i think) and it has been a quality lens to use.
 
lucky_13 said:
Does any one have any experience with the sigma 8-16mm ?
Click to expand...

I've got one, I like it a lot. Can get some great shots at 8mm. Obviously get a little bit of distortion, but the lens correction in Lightroom sorts that out very nicely.

Very sharp, at both ends of range.
 
The Canon seems good but is a lot of money if the Sigma is pretty close. People state the Siggy is of variable build quality but the 10-22 is not an L piece of glass and compares to my 24-70L feels pretty tacky. If you are going to shell out it could be worth trying to borrow one for a bit to take out for the day and see what you think, local camera club could be worth joining or hiring one for the day.

Remember too that a nice prime lens will get you thinking about what you are taking but is going to be more crisp as simple construction.
 
When I had a Canon 450D I had the Tokina 11-16. Built like a tank, and optically excellent in my view. I have no comparisons on a crop camera i.e 10-22, but Tokina is an excellent lens.
 
lucky_13 said:
Does any one have any experience with the sigma 8-16mm ?
Click to expand...

I'v not used it but the main things I'd have agenst it are...

Its only an UWA meaning you need to carry a second lens if you want a narrower view.

It doesnt take filters, polarizers are less useful at that range but graduated ND filters become far more useful IMHO as the wider your view the more likely it is to have a wide dramatic range. Even if the big slot in grad systems don't appeal to you a simple screw in one can be very very useful supprizingly often in my expereince.

I went with the Canon 10-22 myself and couldnt be more happy with it, makes for a very nice light walkaround package with a 550D. To start with I went crazy shooting everything at 10mm and wondered if the extra "tele" range was a waste but as I'v grown into it a bit I'm finding my favourite shots come thoughout the range.
 
Last edited:
Moreorless said:
I'v not used it but the main things I'd have agenst it are...

Its only an UWA meaning you need to carry a second lens if you want a narrower view.

It doesnt take filters, polarizers are less useful at that range but graduated ND filters become far more useful IMHO as the wider your view the more likely it is to have a wide dramatic range. Even if the big slot in grad systems don't appeal to you a simple screw in one can be very very useful supprizingly often in my expereince.

I went with the Canon 10-22 myself and couldnt be more happy with it, makes for a very nice light walkaround package with a 550D. To start with I went crazy shooting everything at 10mm and wondered if the extra "tele" range was a waste but as I'v grown into it a bit I'm finding my favourite shots come thoughout the range.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that the 10-22 would be more useful actually. I was thinking of replacing my kit lens too with a 17-55 f2.8 as well as the 10-22 but now I'm thinking would buying the 15-85 kill 2 birds with one stone!?
 
Had the Sigma and Canon, my vote goes for the latter of the two

Just a personal thing, but prefer the overall look of the photos it delivers plus it does focus quickly

Bit of a cheek not supplying a hood given the price though
 
When I was looking for an UWA the first one I tried was a friends Sigma 10-20. It was terrible, just couldn't get both sides of the frame sharp at the same time. Then I bought the Canon 10-22 and was highly impressed. But I'd kept reading about the Tokina 11-16 and how wonderful it was - so much better than the Canon.

So I bought one.

And was mightily disappointed. The flare was just horrendous! If the sun was anywhere near the edge of the frame then you were almost certain to get huge green blobs just where you didn't want them. That wouldn't be a problem with most lenses, but with a UWA it limits you to only being able to shoot with the sun behind you. The Canon, on the other hand, refuses to flare, even with the sun in the frame.

I did keep the Tokina, but it only gets used for star shots, where the f2.8 is a great help and flare isn't as bad a problem (although still annoying if there's a bright Moon).
 
lucky_13 said:
I was thinking that the 10-22 would be more useful actually. I was thinking of replacing my kit lens too with a 17-55 f2.8 as well as the 10-22 but now I'm thinking would buying the 15-85 kill 2 birds with one stone!?
Click to expand...

If its just horizon panoramas you like then the 15-85 and stitching maybe enough for you I spose. The real benefit of true UWA I'v found is being able to bring out the foreground in a way thats very hard to with stitching.

img1736b.jpg


The 15-85 isnt going to give you much advanatge in appature over the kit lens so its not really a replacement for the 17-55.

Personally I have both the 10-22 and 15-85, the long crossover means taking one lens is alot easier and when I have both it limates changes. The former gets most use in my local area and the latter on holiday.
 
Last edited:
Moreorless said:
If its just horizon panoramas you like then the 15-85 and stitching maybe enough for you I spose. The real benefit of true UWA I'v found is being able to bring out the foreground in a way thats very hard to with stitching.

The 15-85 isnt going to give you much advanatge in appature over the kit lens so its not really a replacement for the 17-55.

Personally I have both the 10-22 and 15-85, the long crossover means taking one lens is alot easier and when I have both it limates changes. The former gets most use in my local area and the latter on holiday.
Click to expand...

You are right it wouldn't give me any advantage at all over the kit lens in aperture but the glass is better quality and a great advantage on focal length plus the usm motor. So what are u saying go for 17-55 f2.8 and the 10-22 f3.5-5.6?
 
Nawty said:
To be fair, at 8mm you hardly need to focus at all so MF isn't much of a bind.
Click to expand...

To put this in perspective, for anyone who cares and hasn't done the maths: at maximum aperture (f3.5) on a crop sensor, focus will be from approximately 50cm through to infinity :D
 
bmwoner said:
The Canon seems good but is a lot of money if the Sigma is pretty close. People state the Siggy is of variable build quality but the 10-22 is not an L piece of glass and compares to my 24-70L feels pretty tacky. If you are going to shell out it could be worth trying to borrow one for a bit to take out for the day and see what you think, local camera club could be worth joining or hiring one for the day.

Remember too that a nice prime lens will get you thinking about what you are taking but is going to be more crisp as simple construction.
Click to expand...

I don't know why people mention the build of the 10-22, its more than adequate. Ok it's not made of solid cast iron* as per L lens overkill but it doesn't need to be!

It's better built than most of Canons lens line up if you actually look past L lenses. It's very solidly built, beautifully put together with lovely, fast, silent smooth focusing with stunning optics. What's to complain about?

*I know they arnt built of cast iron but sometimes they feel like they are!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top