Am saving up for a wide angle lens for the Canon 500D. Currently tied between the Tokina 11-16 and the Canon 10-22. What a pain.
Been reading some forums on the two lens, but haven't really found an "edge"
So far learnt that the Tokina is better in low light conditions, cheaper and a 2.8, but Canon lens is takes sharper pics and has faster focus.
Is anyone using either of this lens... or even better, both? =] What's your take on this? And if it's not these two, what other recommendation should I be looking at?
One of my good mates shoots with the Tokina (on his D90) and loves it! He jokingly says though it's practically a prime because of the tiny focal range. http://www.flickr.com/photos/markwc/4362327578/
I guess it depends if you are going to be shooting low light and what you specific needs would be?
My hunch would be to spend the $$$ on the Canon glass for the sharpness, and the focal range.
Though I would normally say to go with the lower aperture lens, this particular range has inherent traits that may be of great importance:
The Tokina lens is considered a very wide angle lens.
That said, most items in the frame will appear very small in relationship to the close up objects (Friends might not like the results of their picture taken, unless they find having a very large nose attractive).
Also, the Tokina, though great for low light, is pretty "soft" at the lower aps, but quite nice when you get up into the range of the Canon lens.
Canon lens: Much less distortion to image. Much better glass, but slower as a whole.
If you are not planning on using the lens for much more than special effects, or indoor real estate type shots, I would go with the Canon.
I picked up a Sigma Ultrawide, and love it. I hardly use it, so I thought I would save the bucks (about 50%). If you will use it a lot, I believe in investing in the better lens, always.
Daniel provided good links. Rockwell can be a kook, but he gets no endorsements. So, he tells it like it it.
The Tokina seems to stack up well and I'm more concerned with sharpness and aperture. Its not like I'm gonna get close enough to a kid, a moving car, running dog or anything that would require a fast focus for this lens to work anyway. I have other lenses for that. Think about what you will shoot with this lens and then ask if you need clarity or faster focus. For my Nikon I will be getting the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
i have the tokina 11-16. my wide angle shots in my collection are from this lens.
i have trouble focusing. that's actually the only negative thing i can say about it.
i cant much about the 10-22 coz i havent used it yet. hehehe. but if i were to choose all over again, i'd still pick the tokina. for the aperture and the price:)
Wow! Thank you so much guys for the great insights! I'm looking at taking pictures of people in their environment, but of course won't be take such close up shots of their faces. Dropped by the camera shop and tried the Canon lens, it felt pretty alright. But too bad I didn't get to try the Tokina because it's not available. Don't you just hate it when you're constrained by a budget? lol!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm
One of my good mates shoots with the Tokina (on his D90) and loves it! He jokingly says though it's practically a prime because of the tiny focal range. http://www.flickr.com/photos/markwc/4362327578/
I guess it depends if you are going to be shooting low light and what you specific needs would be?
My hunch would be to spend the $$$ on the Canon glass for the sharpness, and the focal range.
I'm interested as to what others think too.
The Tokina lens is considered a very wide angle lens.
That said, most items in the frame will appear very small in relationship to the close up objects (Friends might not like the results of their picture taken, unless they find having a very large nose attractive).
Also, the Tokina, though great for low light, is pretty "soft" at the lower aps, but quite nice when you get up into the range of the Canon lens.
Canon lens: Much less distortion to image. Much better glass, but slower as a whole.
If you are not planning on using the lens for much more than special effects, or indoor real estate type shots, I would go with the Canon.
I hope that helps some
I picked up a Sigma Ultrawide, and love it. I hardly use it, so I thought I would save the bucks (about 50%). If you will use it a lot, I believe in investing in the better lens, always.
Daniel provided good links. Rockwell can be a kook, but he gets no endorsements. So, he tells it like it it.
i have trouble focusing. that's actually the only negative thing i can say about it.
http://365project.org/catrinagots/365/2010-01-30
when i shot this, i had to use manual focus or it wouldnt click.
i cant much about the 10-22 coz i havent used it yet. hehehe. but if i were to choose all over again, i'd still pick the tokina. for the aperture and the price:)