I am considering buying a wide angle lens.
I have read several reviews and still can't decide.
I am thorn between:
Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5
PROS: fast focus, excellent coating. Good zoom range. It's Canon.
CONS: a bit dark. A little more expensive.
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
PROS: excellent sharpness, constant f2.8 - very good for indoors. Good price.
CONS: a lot of flare, short zoom range, cant focus close objects (distant focus range)
Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6
PROS: widest range (8mm!), good sharpness.
CONS: very dark.
I have a Canon 7d and 50d bodies and tried out several wide angle lenses before plumping for the Sigma 10-20. It was slightly less money than the Canon equivalent but I found the results of the Sigma to be superior. Just my opinion. Hope this helps and good luck with whichever you go for.
I was looking at the same lenses last year and went with the Canon 10-22mm and I love it.
It's sharp, fast and I've not noticed it being particularly dark. It has a slighter cooler cast compared to some but I think this works well with landscapes and makes skies very vibrant.
One of my favourite pics I've taken with it is this one
The Canon is definitely the sharpest lens, if you're looking for outright quality it's the best choice, although it's not like the others are very much worse.
The Sigma 8-16 has the benefit of being by far the widest -- the difference between 8mm and 10mm is significant. However, the biggest problem with it is that you can't use filters on it -- so if you want to get into more advanced photography, it is limiting.
The Sigma 10-20mm is a superb lens for the money, a *lot* of my images prior to November were taken with this lens:
Bear in mind that by all accounts Sigma *still* have quality control issues (decentred elements) with both these lenses. I had to return two 10-20mm lenses before I got one that was as sharp as it should be in the corners. If you get a good one though, it's really good.
The Tokina is a great lens because it's f/2.8, so if you are doing low-light shooting with moving subjects, such as wedding photography, it's great. You do pay for that with a much less useful focal length though -- you will be swapping between it and a normal lens more often than with something that reaches 20-22mm.
Remember that none of these lenses are truly sharp in the corners until about f/8 -- for landscape work, you should try and stick to f/8-f/11 with any of these (and indeed, just about any super-wide zoom, as they're almost always soft in the corners until stopped down).
I've been VERY happy with my Canon 16-35mm 1:2.8 L II USM. It is easily wide enough for any shot I've tasked it with, and it's not too much of a leap from 35mm to my next lens. I'm not sure if you shoot full frame, but if so I'd highly recommend it!
You can still use the L lens on a cropped sensor camera. I do it all the time. It just means that you dont get 16mm you get some thing else. i.e. 16mm x 1.6
@gabrielklee I went with Canon in the end for many of the reasons Alexis mentioned from all the reviews I read a the overall impression was the Canon was the best quality and didn't seem to have the problems with build consistency that the sigma has.
I decided against the Tonika as the range was too small.
Also I read that the Canon is an unofficial L series, apparently it is made to the same standard but because it is an EF-S lens it couldn't be called an L series.
On the negative side if you are considering buying a full frame camera in the future you won't be able to use it as the EF-S lenses aren't compatible with them.
It's the 4.5-5.6, I have been using this lens a lot, you can get right on top of the subject and get it all in the frame with no distortion. Also it's very fast and sharp. It's just my favourite lens at the moment, I am planning in doing a lot of landscape shots etc
I was looking at the Canon 10-22mm this is the lens you want if you are planning to do ir photography. The sigma 10-20 does not work to good due to hot spots for ir photography. I think at the time the canon was £100 more than the sigma.
@emmar84 Unfortunately you can't meaningfully use any of them on a full-frame camera -- the Canon is the only one that won't physically fit, but the others will vignette to the point of unusability.
Here's some examples of the Sigma 10-20 on a full-frame camera:
I tried fitting this lens to my full-frame camera when I first got it, and looking through the viewfinder did not in any way inspire me to go out and take photos.
The only one of these lenses that is really at all usable on a full-frame camera is the Tokina 11-16mm, which at 16mm doesn't quite vignette, so you can use it as a 16mm prime. However, you are still using it well outside the design parameters, so the full-frame corners are hideously soft and have huge amounts of CA.
Sadly, there is no ultrawide lens that really works on both crop-frame and full-frame cameras -- the crop-frame lenses don't have a big enough image circle to cover the full-frame sensor, and the full-frame lenses don't go wide enough when mounted on a crop body. The closest was the full-frame Sigma 12-24mm lens, but that's been out of production for a few years now, and wasn't great quality-wise (although it didn't really need to be, as the selling point was the crazy-wide angle on a full-frame camera)
I poured over Internet reviews on wide angles and eventually went tokina 11 - 16 and it's great. It's a canon fit and on my cropped sensor. Be warned though it will fit a full frame if you go that way but can only really be used wide open at 16. Some call it a prime lens. It's also a sturdy lens. What ever you buy will always re-sell at a good price.
Also don't forget the tokina 12 - 24 which gets you closer to your subject as 16 can be limiting.
There is a slight issue with flare over say the canon but nothing to get too concerned about. The Internet comparisons show side by side flare examples of the different lens types. I purchased a uv and polarising filter for it and it has given some great results. The only downside to me is the narrow 11 - 16 range but this just means you have to get closer and not stand in the one spot. The 2.8 at night is a big plus. You'll find pros and cons for each and it's what's important to you. Hope this helps.
Oh my, I was just about to ask the fabulous community about what wide-angled to go for...I have a 600D canon -are the ones recommended OK for my Canon ??
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
If it was me I would get the canon as it is wide enought but then long enough so it would have less gap between then next lens up.
It's sharp, fast and I've not noticed it being particularly dark. It has a slighter cooler cast compared to some but I think this works well with landscapes and makes skies very vibrant.
One of my favourite pics I've taken with it is this one
and love it!!! No cons for me.
Plus if you do a lot of hiking its very light wieght.
The Sigma 8-16 has the benefit of being by far the widest -- the difference between 8mm and 10mm is significant. However, the biggest problem with it is that you can't use filters on it -- so if you want to get into more advanced photography, it is limiting.
The Sigma 10-20mm is a superb lens for the money, a *lot* of my images prior to November were taken with this lens:
Bear in mind that by all accounts Sigma *still* have quality control issues (decentred elements) with both these lenses. I had to return two 10-20mm lenses before I got one that was as sharp as it should be in the corners. If you get a good one though, it's really good.
The Tokina is a great lens because it's f/2.8, so if you are doing low-light shooting with moving subjects, such as wedding photography, it's great. You do pay for that with a much less useful focal length though -- you will be swapping between it and a normal lens more often than with something that reaches 20-22mm.
Remember that none of these lenses are truly sharp in the corners until about f/8 -- for landscape work, you should try and stick to f/8-f/11 with any of these (and indeed, just about any super-wide zoom, as they're almost always soft in the corners until stopped down).
Do you use the f4.5-5.6 or the f3.5 version? And why?
I decided against the Tonika as the range was too small.
Also I read that the Canon is an unofficial L series, apparently it is made to the same standard but because it is an EF-S lens it couldn't be called an L series.
On the negative side if you are considering buying a full frame camera in the future you won't be able to use it as the EF-S lenses aren't compatible with them.
Here's some examples of the Sigma 10-20 on a full-frame camera:
http://forum.pbase.com/viewtopic.php?t=23905
I tried fitting this lens to my full-frame camera when I first got it, and looking through the viewfinder did not in any way inspire me to go out and take photos.
The only one of these lenses that is really at all usable on a full-frame camera is the Tokina 11-16mm, which at 16mm doesn't quite vignette, so you can use it as a 16mm prime. However, you are still using it well outside the design parameters, so the full-frame corners are hideously soft and have huge amounts of CA.
Sadly, there is no ultrawide lens that really works on both crop-frame and full-frame cameras -- the crop-frame lenses don't have a big enough image circle to cover the full-frame sensor, and the full-frame lenses don't go wide enough when mounted on a crop body. The closest was the full-frame Sigma 12-24mm lens, but that's been out of production for a few years now, and wasn't great quality-wise (although it didn't really need to be, as the selling point was the crazy-wide angle on a full-frame camera)
Also don't forget the tokina 12 - 24 which gets you closer to your subject as 16 can be limiting.
http://365project.org/mfurness/365/2012-05-29
http://365project.org/mfurness/365/2012-04-09
http://365project.org/mfurness/365/2012-09-05
http://365project.org/mfurness/365/2012-02-27