Wide Angle Lenses - Sigma, Canon, Tokina (Update: Bought Tokina)

leon1p

leon1p

Suspended / Banned
Messages
884
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been considering buying a wider angle lens than my 18-55 kit lens..

So far I've been trying to find out whether to get a Canon 10-22 or a Sigma 10-20 but now I have just found out that a 12-24 Tokina may be another option?

I'm not really a fan of the distorted images that ultra wide lenses give.. My main uses would be for taking photos of cars at close range and hopefully buildings, streets etc whatever the lens allows me to do :)

Any pointers would be good.. any comments on Tokina lenses?

I think I'm going to go Canon over Sigma.. but will research Tokina first.

Hope people can enlighten me,

Graeme
 
One thing to be aware of is that there's a huge difference between 10mm and 12mm.

I don't have any experience of the Tokina 12-24, but I have of the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 10-22. The Sigma is a good lens. The Canon is a very good lens.
 
Tokina lenses have a much more "quality" feel to them than Sigma, but people see the 10-20 and think "wow, 10mm", but for architecture at least I've never liked 10mm as it leaves you with major distortion.

This shot was taken at 17mm with a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, which produces even more distortion (intentionally) than say the Sigma 10-20.

2766603300_920d5a7c1a.jpg


whereas this one was taken at 10mm

2766602428_ba42b4fdc2.jpg


The distortion with the Sigma and Canon lenses isn't quite as dramatic as with the fisheye, which has an fov of 180 degrees against 102 degrees for the Sigma and 97 degrees for the Canon
 
I'm not keen on fish eyes when they are extreme.
Just so I know.. FOV is field of view horizontally? (in this case).

I think I need to go and find some samples from each lens at each range with varying subjects. If there are any other samples people think might help me understand better then please post them.

I will try to figure out the difference between 10/12 and I may go find some images that I like and hope there is exif data.

I'm going to Australia next year so I'll look for Melbourne photos as that is where I expect i'd get most use.
 
The tokina 11-16 f2.8 is supposed to be a Nikon beater and can be bought for less than £350.00
 
go to your local photo shop and ask for a demo dosnt have to be on your camera just so long as you get the idea of what the lens does they may not have all of them but it would give you a better idea good luck:thumbs:
 
Just bought the Sigma 10-20 & as mentioned it does show "unusual" distortion at 10mm, although I don't think this is specific to the lens, more the focal length. The distortion reduces significantly around 12mm & pretty much non-existant at 14mm. As landscape photography is my main interest distortion isn't often that noticeable anyway but it's likely to be evident with you own photography requirements.

simon
 
The Tokina 11-16 is quite appealing because I have an interest in night time photography that I would like to develop so the f2.8 sounds like it may be of benefit to me.. There's not many of these lenses on the go though..

I really do need to try and get a shot of the canon/sigma to get a feel for what 10mm is like when your actually looking through a camera :)
 
I use the Sigma 12-24mm, and like it a lot, and is a very well regarded lens generally.

One of the advantages of it is that you can use it with all the canon bodies, in case you ever upgrade.

The only dowmside is that you can't fit filters.
 
I think the 11-16 Tokina is worth a look, Graeme. I'm seriously considering one myself (once I have some money for such things :lol:) as I really like the quality feel of the 10-17. I had a "feel" at the 12-24 but couldn't try it as the shop only had a Canon fit, but it certainly felt up the quality of construction of the 10-17.
 
Looking at about £440 for the 11-16.. the same price as my camera, it doesn't say on the box.. caution you will end up spending 1000's on bits on and bobs.. I better learn how to make money from my images!
 
That's your own fault for buying Canon, I could have let you have a shot of some of my lenses if you'd been "sensible" :razz:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
That's your own fault for buying Canon, I could have let you have a shot of some of my lenses if you'd been "sensible" :razz:
Click to expand...

That's exactly why I got a Canon.. My dad has a 400d ;) and had spare kit lenses, and has a Sigma 70-500

So I wouldn't mind spending money on a good useful lens that we can both get the use of.

Thanks DFM that's handy :D
 
Les McLean said:
I use the Sigma 12-24mm, and like it a lot, and is a very well regarded lens generally.

One of the advantages of it is that you can use it with all the canon bodies, in case you ever upgrade.

The only dowmside is that you can't fit filters.
Click to expand...


I use the 12-24 Sigma as well - on digital and film. This means that you get the full field of view of the 12 mm (using a 35mm body) rather than the cropped FoV, so (taking the crop factor as 1.5x - for Nikon) I gain 3mm of wideness using the 12-24 on film over using the 10-20 on digital (Dx body). IF FF or 35mm might be an option in the relatively near future, I would recommend a full frame compatible lens over a Dx (or Canon/Pentax/MinoltaSony/whatever) one.

On digital, it IS possible to use filters (Dx sensor) by taking the "flat" cap off the bucket cap but at the shorter lengths it does cause vignetting. It's also possible to use gelatin filters by cutting them to size and slipping them into the filter holder at the back end of the lens - Sigma provide a template for cutting the filter material for this use.
 
Bump from the grave...

Back to this i'm afraid although now I'm just a step away from buying so.. Ruled out the Sigma and it's between..

Tokina 11-16mm for £347
Canon 10-22mm for £393 (f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens)

Will I benefit from the f2.8 on the Tokina for night photography of cars and buildings

And showing my amateur side.. what does "Equivalent to a 16-35mm zoom" mean on the 10-22mm? and "equivalent to 16.5-24mm in 35mm format" on the tokina :thinking:

Both seem to be great reviews.. how would you spend your money?


...Argh.. so much to decide on.

Currently thinking the 11-16 will fit nicely with my 18-55, and the tokina seems well thought of..
I just need to decide if the 10-22 will be a more tactical investment as they hold their value (unsure of the Tokina 2nd hand market).

*OK no-one mentioned there was a Tamron 11-18:bang:
 
leon1p said:
"Equivalent to a 16-35mm zoom" mean on the 10-22mm? and "equivalent to 16.5-24mm in 35mm format" on the tokina :thinking:

...Argh.. so much to decide on.

Currently thinking the 11-16 will fit nicely with my 18-55, and the tokina seems well thought of..
I just need to decide if the 10-22 will be a more tactical investment as they hold their value (unsure of the Tokina 2nd hand market).
Click to expand...

That Tokina's on my radar, dunno if that's a recommendation though :lol:

The "equivalent" figure is an indication of the field of view the lens gives you when you take the crop factor of your camera's sensor (1.6x) into account.


I would think the Canon lens will probably hold it's value better than the Tokina one (the main thing stopping me buying one) but you have to ask yourself if you are then buying the lens purely for it's resale value.

Got a coin handy? Flip it ;)
 
Tokina! I've decided.. well I flipped a memory card to see if it would agree with me.. (let me just check it doesn't turn like buttered toast... Nope safe enough).

Any downfalls of the Tokina that should worry me? Lack of USM.. focusing issues etc?

I still dont understand crop factors and all that.. think I better start reading those books at the side of my bed! (No not those kind!).
 
I love this lens and although it is designed for a 1.6x sensor, it can be used on any 1.6x camera (it is NOT an EFS lens). In fact, it can even be used at 16-17mm or longer on a full frame camera but, I would not opt for the Tokina if a full-frame was in the near future. The capability of use on a non-EFS 1.6x camera helps me since I have a Canon D60 which has been converted to full-time infra red and this camera cannot accept EFS lenses.

The Tokina is very well built and provides excellent imagery. Some photographers complain about flare but, I have had no problems in that respect.

By the way, as per U.S. prices, the 12-24mm Tokina is 2/3 the price of the Canon alternative since the Tokina is supplied with a lens hood and you ned to buy one as an accessory for the Canon.

Here is a car gallery, many of which were taken with the 12-24mm Tokina.

http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/gallery/4066786_FvaXn#236834728_DZJQW
 
I think fwiw that the Tokina 116 is the lens to go for. It has the latest technology, good build quality and best of all super sharp pic quality.

My daughter is going to the States in a couple of weeks and she is under orders to get herself to Colonial Drive and speak to Leroy (who I contacted by phone) of Colonial Photo & Hobby who has one of these babies on hold for me.

I can't wait for it to arrive here...........

David.
 
Thanks for the link rpcrowe, I have only just bought a 450D (my first DSLR) so even if i Do get a Full frame camera it won't be in the near future ("That's what you think" i hear you say :)) Also my dad and brother have 400D EF-S lenses would never go to waste ;)

I almost swayed back to a Canon but I think the 11-16 will get it.. Hope to see some of the results you get when you get yours gwocni.

I will probably have ordered mine by the end of the night.. My blood is pumping with the stress of deciding.
 
"Your Order Has Been Received!"

Oh right yeh... Cheers Graham ;)

I got it as cheap as you can I think from Onestop digital.

I'll let you know how I get on with it although I have nothing to compare it against.
 
This thread (thanks leon by the way:clap::clap:) has just put a right spanner in my works. I was just researching Canon 12-22 prices and now I've got to re-think it all over again.
I must admit the f2.8 of the Tokina 11-16 is too appealing to ignore.

Am I right in thinking it is f2.8 through to 16m?
Do you sometimes wish you hadn't bothered turning the pc on?:bang::bang:

Ian
 
Apparently the 2.8 is "throughout" which I assume means you can use that at any Focal length.

I've also read that the 2.8 isn't that crucial because lens shake is less apparent it wide focal lengths compared to telephoto shots.

To summarise this thread:

Buy a Tokina.. you'll be happy but wonder if the 10-22mm would have been better
Buy a Canon.. you'll be happy but wonder if the 11-16mm would have been better
Buy a Sigma.. you'll be happy but always have nagging doubts about softness because of others experiences and wish you bought an 1-16 or 10-22.

Canon has resale value but then given that plenty people fancy the Tokinas I doubt they will suffer much in the second hand market either... neither lens circulates in large quantities so a well looked after tokina should sell for a reasonable price I think.

Why did I choose Tokina? The 2.8 isn't crucial but I have a distinct interest in night time photography and potentially require a fast lens.. And also the 11-16 fits well with my 18-55.

Flash In The Pan said:
On second thoughts, maybe the Canon would be a better buy for you, Graeme :lol: :exit:
Click to expand...
Doh!
 
The 2.8 aperture of the Tokina will also give you a brighter viewfinder than either the Sigma or Canon lenses
 
Which reminds me i need to get hold of an eyepiece thingy.. "dioptre adjustment thingy" to be precise.. I just cant focus properly on the viewfinder with my left eye and the camera doesn't fit the other side of my face :D
 
rpcrowe said:
I love this lens and although it is designed for a 1.6x sensor, it can be used on any 1.6x camera (it is NOT an EFS lens). In fact, it can even be used at 16-17mm or longer on a full frame camera but, I would not opt for the Tokina if a full-frame was in the near future.
http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/gallery/4066786_FvaXn#236834728_DZJQW
Click to expand...

I have this lens too and it's a cracker, though I was worried I wouldn't be able to use it if I ever did go full frame, so this info is certainly useful - thanks :thumbs:
 
Yeh thanks to everyone for their input on this.. lots of helpful advice and links etc!

PS It's not arrived yet :( I ordered it over 3 hours ago :lol:
 
leon1p said:
I've been considering buying a wider angle lens than my 18-55 kit lens..

So far I've been trying to find out whether to get a Canon 10-22 or a Sigma 10-20 but now I have just found out that a 12-24 Tokina may be another option?

I'm not really a fan of the distorted images that ultra wide lenses give.. My main uses would be for taking photos of cars at close range and hopefully buildings, streets etc whatever the lens allows me to do :)

Any pointers would be good.. any comments on Tokina lenses?

I think I'm going to go Canon over Sigma.. but will research Tokina first.

Hope people can enlighten me,

Graeme
Click to expand...

i have a sigma 15-30mm it's great and can be used on full frame cameras as well more of a true wide angle then possibly a distorted one from the 10mm to 12 mm range, and great at land scapes too, a more forgiving len's, no problems with it as yet, cost me half price of the others you mention to boot.:clap::thumbs:

Regards Mark
 
It'll be interesting to see the results with this lens. Looked at the Sigma a few months ago, but decided to wait. The Tokina looks a better option
 
leon1p said:
Apparently the 2.8 is "throughout" which I assume means you can use that at any Focal length.

I've also read that the 2.8 isn't that crucial because lens shake is less apparent it wide focal lengths compared to telephoto shots.

To summarise this thread:

Buy a Tokina.. you'll be happy but wonder if the 10-22mm would have been better
Buy a Canon.. you'll be happy but wonder if the 11-16mm would have been better
Buy a Sigma.. you'll be happy but always have nagging doubts about softness because of others experiences and wish you bought an 1-16 or 10-22.

Canon has resale value but then given that plenty people fancy the Tokinas I doubt they will suffer much in the second hand market either... neither lens circulates in large quantities so a well looked after tokina should sell for a reasonable price I think.

Why did I choose Tokina? The 2.8 isn't crucial but I have a distinct interest in night time photography and potentially require a fast lens.. And also the 11-16 fits well with my 18-55.
Click to expand...

It's the f2.8 throughout that is the major factor for me, without it I wouldn't even consider it. The low light flexibility and shallow DOF make it potentially a "lens to have" for the money in my book.
Can't wait to see the results. It's sounding good so far though.
Ian
 
I had a Tokina 19-35mm, couldn't fault it... Now all we have to say is "where's the photos with it then!!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top