Yet another wide angle lens question.

4

48thEagle

Suspended / Banned
Messages
367
Edit My Images
Yes
At some point, I am looking to get a wide angle lens, and have narrowed it down to the usual suspects, the Canon 10-22mm, or the Sigma 10-20.

However, browsing through the ads in one of the magazines, I noticed a Tokina 11-16 mm f2.8 PRO DX AF, anyone got any thoughts on which of the three would be in your kit bag?
 
I've also been looking at this decision. Most people seem to have the Sigma, but probably 'cos it's cheaper and most see it as a "fun" lens.

The Tokina actually gets incredibly good reviews and if you look at the review on photozone.de the Tokina wins hands down (apart from fairly poor CA performance)

Sigma = http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/3...-56-hsm-ex-dc-lab-test-report--review?start=1

Tokina = http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=2

Canon = http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/174-canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=2

The Tokina is also cheaper than the Canon - and apparently better build quality and better resolution. Some may think the 5mm range of the Tokina is limiting, but I don't think it'd bother me. I would go with the Tokina.

Unfortunately I don't own either lens, but hope this helps.

Eddie.
 
I own the sigma, bought recently and can recommend it, even though it took me 3 copies to get a good one !!

There's some noticeable distortion at 10mm which you'll either love or hate, it can certainly make things interesting. The distortion is dramatically reduced at 12mm.

simon
 
I use the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina and I just love the lens. I am tempted to try the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 but I am afraid I will fall in love with it even more than the 12-24mm and there goes some more hard-earned funds.
 
For 1mm of focal length - is it worth it. The 12 - 24 is going to be very much more versatile.
 
Lensflare said:
For 1mm of focal length - is it worth it. The 12 - 24 is going to be very much more versatile.
Click to expand...

The 1mm of focal length doesnt really concern me. However, the f/2.8 aperture is rather intriguing. I shoot with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as my mid-range zoom. The 11-16mm f/2.8 would match up very well with the 17-55mm plus give me that extra stop (over the 12-24mm f/4) for lower light levels. I always shoot with at least 2 cameras so I would have (with the 11-16mm f/2.8) a focal range from 11mm to 55mm with f/2.8 in all focal lengths.
 
Aha, that last piece of information was vital for the advice you got!

You didn't mention that you already had 17mm coverage. In which case the overlap of the 12-24 is wasted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top