Wide angle lenses

Hadley

Hadley

Suspended / Banned
Messages
226
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
I was thinking about purchasing a tokina 12-24. However after reading other posts by people I've noticed that lot's of people are recommending the sigma 10-20.

I would be using the lens primarily for landscapes, and possibly documenting interior design.

From what I've gathered from DP-review, it would seem that the tokina is slightly better however it suffers from flare and chromatic aberration. Is this something I should worry about? :thinking:

Is there another lens that I should be considering?
:help:
 
daugirdas said:
I've tried sigma and then bought Tokina 12-24mm and happy with it. Only Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is a more interesting lens.
Click to expand...

The thought that I had with the Tokina 11-16 is that it'll always be extreamly wide. were something close to 12-24/10-20 will give me a bit more flexibility.
 
If your doing indoor shots the fixed 2.8 of the Tokina would be really handy, theres a newer Sigma 10-20 thats comes with a constant 3.5. If you have the cash the Canon 10-22mm is as good as it gets.
 
Donki said:
If your doing indoor shots the fixed 2.8 of the Tokina would be really handy, theres a newer Sigma 10-20 thats comes with a constant 3.5. If you have the cash the Canon 10-22mm is as good as it gets.
Click to expand...

I don't need a particulary fast lens as I was planning to use a tripod with most of the shots I take, and Canon is a bit out of my budget
 
I don't think you will be disappointed which ever one you go for.
All excellent lenses I used my Sigma 10-20mm all the time on my DX until I purchased the Tokina 10-17mm that is my first choice of ultra wide now.
But at the wide end it's 180 FF fisheye and isn't everyone's cuppa :)
 
daugirdas said:
I've tried sigma and then bought Tokina 12-24mm and happy with it. Only Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is a more interesting lens.
Click to expand...

But let's be honest you would never suggest a Sigma lens.

To the OP I have the sigma and am very happy with it. If you do go far a sigma don't go for the fixed f3.5 as it is not as good as the cheaper variable 10-20
 
Tokina 11-16 (cropped sensor)
Canon 10-22 (cropped sensor)
Nikon 10-24 (cropped sensor)

I would sway against the Sigma 10-20 (even though I use it myself). It's a little soft (softer than those above) and suffers from too much fall off. Saying that it is a good starter w/a for the money.
 
ive just got a ttokina 12-24, and im very happy with it, you do get a little chromatic abberation but its easily fixed in camera raw.

i did want the canon version but it was a little out of my price range, although i did compare them both on a site and they came up on par??

to the users above, what is the best wide angle from your experiences for everyday landscapes... I:E using f/8 etc... ?

wes
:)
 
micloi said:
Order of preference for me (I owned them all!)

Tokina 11-16mm
Canon 10-22mm
Tokina 12-24mm
Tamron 10-24mm
Sigma 10-20mm
Tamron 11-18mm
Click to expand...

thats interesting :) just two questions,

1) what puts the 11-16 above the canon.
2) how about the sigma 12-24?

cheers
wes :)
 
ok, thanks for your review :)
hard to find someone that has used/owned them all.

as above, ive just got a tokina 12-24, and would highly recomend it for the money,
but will definately have a play with the canon and other tokina when its upgrade time.

cheers wes :D
 
"Not as sharp, period" No offence but this comment is usually made by people who've read it on the internet somewhere.

I've owned one for years and I've posted example shots here in the past and people commented on how sharp they are at 100%. I'll do so again if requested. I think it's a great lens and easily better than the Canon 10-22mm I had before (it suffered from distortion and vignetting and these are things that don't affect the Siggy on APS-C) and it has the advantage of being FF compatible too.
 
woof woof said:
"Not as sharp, period" No offence but this comment is usually made by people who've read it on the internet somewhere.

I've owned one for years and I've posted example shots here in the past and people commented on how sharp they are at 100%. I'll do so again if requested. I think it's a great lens and easily better than the Canon 10-22mm I had before (it suffered from distortion and vignetting and these are things that don't affect the Siggy on APS-C) and it has the advantage of being FF compatible too.
Click to expand...

I have tried 2 and both were very soft at the edges.
If yours is sharp then great but my experience was not a good one, especially for such an expensive lens and I do not see why the OP should risk it if he can get any of the other lenses I listed (especially the Canon and the 2 Tokinas).
 
woof woof said:
"Not as sharp, period" No offence but this comment is usually made by people who've read it on the internet somewhere.

I've owned one for years and I've posted example shots here in the past and people commented on how sharp they are at 100%. I'll do so again if requested. I think it's a great lens and easily better than the Canon 10-22mm I had before (it suffered from distortion and vignetting and these are things that don't affect the Siggy on APS-C) and it has the advantage of being FF compatible too.
Click to expand...

^
If I remember correctly you posted one 100% crop at the lens of f/8, and when folk asked you to post shots at other f/ stops, you refused, because it was too windy outside or something. The conversation tailed off and we never did see any 100% crops of this fantastic lens at anything other than the perfect aperture. Your comment about distortion and vignetting not affecting the Sigma on APS-C are totally irrelevant because it's a full frame lens, so the image circle covers a larger area. The image circle of the Canon 10-22 does not.

A plastic milk carton would be sharp at f/8, so it would be more interesting to see shots wide open or close to. My 17-40 is sharp in the centre and at the thirds wide open. very sharp. In fact I often don't even bother stopping down.
 
Last edited:
Oh for God sake...

Trench, I didn't refuse as an excuse. What I said was perfectly true on the day as it was a windy day. If I'd stepped outside and taken a shot it would have included trees blowing in the wind and what earthly use would that have been?

Please don't imply that I'm either dishonest or hiding anything as I'm not.

I mostly use the lens for landscape and hyperfocal so f8+ is where 99% of my shots will be.

Also, my comment about distortion and vignettting is very valid in any conversation or post that includes the Canon 10-22mm and the Sigma 12-24mm.

What is wrong with you today Trench? If you are out for a fight, fine... but please don't get your knickers in a twist by implying that I'm either hiding anything or raising points that aren't valid. Both the Canon 10-22 and Siggy 12-24 were previously mentioned by other people before me.

Worth repeating...For God sake Trench.

PS. Another thing you got wrong..., I posted not one image but several.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Oh for God sake...

Trench, I didn't refuse as an excuse. What I said was perfectly true on the day as it was a windy day. If I'd stepped outside and taken a shot it would have included trees blowing in the wind and what earthly use would that have been?

Please don't imply that I'm either dishonest or hiding anything as I'm not.

I mostly use the lens for landscape and hyperfocal so f8+ is where 99% of my shots will be.

Also, my comment about distortion and vignettting is very valid in any conversation or post that includes the Canon 10-22mm and the Sigma 12-24mm.

What is wrong with you today Trench? If you are out for a fight, fine... but please don't get your knickers in a twist by implying that I'm either hiding anything or raising points that aren't valid. Both the Canon 10-22 and Siggy 12-24 were previously mentioned by other people before me.

Worth repeating...For God sake Trench.
Click to expand...




What I am implying is that the test was by no means a true example of the lens' performance. Putting a full frame lens on a crop body and then shooting a test shot at f/8 is not a true test of its optical ability, it's sugarcoating. Any lens looks good at f/8, particularly if it is being used on a smaller format than what it was originally intended for.

I know you don't like the fact that not everyone shares your view that Sigma glass is superior in every way, but I find it equally irritating that you are touting it due to possibly the most false positives you can grab your hands on.
 
Yet more untrue rubbish Trench?

When have I ever said that Sigma glass is superior in every way? I own several Sigma lenses, several Canon lenses and one Tamron and I can only post from personal experience.

I use use 12-24mm mostly for landscape at f8+, seems perfectly reasonable to me. If I want faster I use a prime.

As you are clearly in a bad mood today and resorting to your past habit of exaggerating and posting inaccurately (something that has been noted before by others and not not just me) I'll leave you and the thread alone.
 
I have had a decent sample of a Sigma 10-20mm and Canon 10-22mm

Not sure of the numerous technical details, but I find the pictures from the Canon are more pleasing to my eye

My landscape shots are generally at f/16 and its the overall detail, contrast and colour I judge them by

So that's my comparison and will leave others to argue the toss over their merits
 
Last edited:

I apologise that my above posts came off the way they did.

I'm still sticking to my guns in that I think it's a bit odd to compare an APS-C and a full frame lens - but we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 
Donki said:
You seem to have been ignored. In reviews the newer lens doesn't seem to fair as well as the old variable aperture Sigma 10-20mm. Its also supposed to be very soft wide open.
Click to expand...

Oh :'( Thanks for answering...
 
I had a sigma 10-20. Never really pixel peeped with it until I came to sell it. Realised it was very sharp. Regretted putting it up for sale. But went through with the deal. Now wish I had another.
 
And the AF, at least on my copy, was to die for. Probably better than my 17-40 :nuts:
 
I've got the Sigma 10-20

I haven't got a clue if it's soft and frankly don't give a ****. All I know is that it cost a lot lot lot less than the Canon, gives me shots that print out lovely at 30 x 20 inch and gives me a grin every time I see the results :)
 
If you want the absolute widest lens available atm, which isn't a fisheye, look at the sigma 8-16mm.

As everyone else has said, the 10-20 sigma is usually an outstanding lens. I had one before my 14-24 and absolutely loved it.
 
I have the Tokina 12-24 f4 and really like it. I ve not used the others seriously but thought the zoom range on the 11-16 was tiny when I played with it so went with the 12-24. Theres a review of the Tokina here

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=262238&page=2

also reviews of most of the others.

I know lots of people who like the Sigma 10-20 but on the other hand I also know a pro tog who does lots of landscapes who wont use it wider than 12mm as he feels the quality drops away.
 
Donki said:
You seem to have been ignored. In reviews the newer lens doesn't seem to fair as well as the old variable aperture Sigma 10-20mm. Its also supposed to be very soft wide open.
Click to expand...

Ok, been reading reviews and they mostly say the 3.5 is slightly better than the older variable one. *whew* you had me worried there...

I wonder about the tiny 11-16mm zoom, with that little range, why not get a 12mm prime instead?
 
morsing said:
Why do you say that?
Click to expand...

Donki said:
You seem to have been ignored. In reviews the newer lens doesn't seem to fair as well as the old variable aperture Sigma 10-20mm. Its also supposed to be very soft wide open.
Click to expand...

Not being ignored, busy with work and javing been away all week the kids take preference when I get home.

As said the fixed 3.5 is meant to be softer as per internet reviews and I am sure there were posts on here too.

I appologies for the delay in answering
 
Thanks to all those who replied.

I didn’t really look into the canon 10-22. A friend a while ago told me that it had bad barrel distortion and then today some one told me it didn’t and was relatively cheap. Not sure what to think about the Canon?

However at the moment I’m leaning towards the Tokina. Mainly because it seems to be tied with the sigma in IQ and I believe that it slightly tougher and I’m a bit clumsy.
 
By its very nature a UWA will have barrell distortion and it's not neccesarily a bad thing. It depend on what you want to shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top