Which Super Wide should I buy....

[Jwreich]

I'm in the market for a wide angle lens. I like to place my subject close to the camera but I also like to include as much of the sourroundings as possible. I also like the look of wide angle shots with the distortion they produce at the edges...

I've been reading here for weeks and I compiled my list. Before I drop the coin, I want to ask about suggestions based on my models listed below.


Sigma 15~30 f3.5-4.5 EX -- $499 The Sigma is a nice lens, but is a hoss on the front of my XT. I took some pictures with one yesterday and was amazed at how large it is to be a f3.5. I would look like a f2.8 with the overall size. :) :)

Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 Di LD -- $499 This lens is #2 on my list because of the f2.8. A faster lens at wide angle only makes sense in my book, however I do loose some of the wide compared to the other two options I've listed. :) :) :)

Tokina 12-24 f4 AT-X Pro -- $499 This is the favorite, it is a constant f4 and the widest of the bunch. I have noticed test shots on dbase and really like how this lens looks. From reading reviews it is liked by those who own it. Any POTN thoughts? :) :) :) :)


The Canon 10-22 isn't out of the running, but I don't know if I can justify the difference in cost for this lens. I have read mixed reviews, however it is W I D E...:)

Sigma also makes a 12-24 f4.5-5.6 EX DG $709 which I put into the bucket with Canon. I would just buy the Canon if I had a $700 budget.

I do not have plans of rasing my budget any higher then the $550 mark for the lens. I like quality, but feel the three primary options above have been testing and been successful. I have read bad statements about each lens listed.

Before I sink this money, what thoughts exist here at POTN.... BTW I would just buy these locally for the easy return, however they all start at $700 and I aint paying that for a $500 lens...

I'll pay return shipping to whomever I buy it from.

Thanks for your help!

[EOSAddict]

JWreich - i Have been thinking exactly the question you asked - hope we get some good feedback..

Condyk likes the Tokina if you can catch his thoughts on another thread I posted earlier today

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=84122

PS don't necessarily assume Canon=best even if same price - Sigma make some pretty damn good lenses!

[ed rader]

and i love it. 17mm is effectively 27mm (FF) and is plenty wide for me most of the time. i've seen the lens for sale new on ebay for $370. hell of a deal imo.

ed rader

[bolantej]

don't forget tamron has an 11-18 ;) that might be the one i get, if the 10-22 doesn't get a hold of me.

[Jwreich]

I love my Tamron 28-75 so the 17-35 does have a strong place with me. I didn't know Tamron make an 11-18, I'll have to check it out. So far the Tamron products have been good for me.

[Camo 757]

I just went through this myself. After testing the all of them except the new Sigma 10-20. I came away with a clear winner. The Tokina has great range, beautiful contrast and color. It is surprisingly sharp at both ends and the f4 is very nice to have. I took a group photo of 40 relatives on the 4th from 10ft away. How cool is that?

[Camo 757]

Make your store match prices. I make Ritz and Helix (Chicago) get close to BH all the time. Screw policy, want my business?

[Jwreich]

Camo 757,

I looked at Ritz but they didn't list Tokina on their website. I guss you bought it locally in Chicago. Our Ritz/Wolf stores suck here in Tulsa.

--

[SeanH]

10-22...unless your not 1.6. Other than that your wasting your money, the 10-22 is the lens that should have a "L" after it. Most guys that use it agree. If you think of it that way it's easy to get past the cost. Without a doubt a challenge for my favorite lens......right up there with my 70-200 2.8. Not other L lens I have, or have had can hold a candle to it......17-40L, or 24-70L aren't even close. That's my 2 cents. Here's a few shots I took about 1 hour of owning this lens.....
http://www.pbase.com/blue622/1022_photos

[Rob612]

I love my 10-22, but that's just me.

[csnudelman]

It would be well worth the $$$ for the Canon brand if possiable. You won't regreat it.

[MrChad]

I just got my 10-22mm, very good build. I was tempted by the Sigma 10-20mm but I didn't want to wait for the release, I wanted the Canon's speed, and the USM. So far my test shots have been good. I run out of MP resolution before sharpness with this lens.

Plus, I have one Sigma now, I didn't want to buy purhaps yet another Canon DSLR down the road and need to replace both Sigma lenses if infact they couldn't be re-chipped to work on the new Canon DSLR.

If all my lenses had been Canon before the purchase I would have more seriously looked at the Sigma EX but I had to have the full 10mm on the wide end.

Build of the Canon is very nice, it's built just as well as my 75-300 IS USM if not a tad better. And the Canon 10-22mm is surprisingly light, much lighter then either of my other 2 lenses.

[OceanView]

10-22...unless your not 1.6. Other than that your wasting your money, the 10-22 is the lens that should have a "L" after it. Most guys that use it agree. If you think of it that way it's easy to get past the cost. Without a doubt a challenge for my favorite lens......right up there with my 70-200 2.8. Not other L lens I have, or have had can hold a candle to it......17-40L, or 24-70L aren't even close. That's my 2 cents. Here's a few shots I took about 1 hour of owning this lens.....
http://www.pbase.com/blue622/1022_photos

Wow, you like more than the 24-70L ?
Isn't the 24-70 more versital for everyday use and as a good walk around?

[Jwreich]

Well it looks like the Canon boys have a arrived. That's cool and something to really consider. It will be hard to come up with the extra cash, but I won't doubt the Canon is a great lens. I guess I'll just have to add it to the thinking... It's just hard to go from $500 - $800.

--

[MrChad]

Well it looks like the Canon boys have a arrived. That's cool and something to really consider. It will be hard to come up with the extra cash, but I won't doubt the Canon is a great lens. I guess I'll just have to add it to the thinking... It's just hard to go from $500 - $800.

--

I wanted the Sigma but I reasoned that in general you buy Canon DSLR's to run Canon EF(S) lenses. It wasn't without sacrifice I had to sell my Elan 7N to fund the EFS, many might think--so what, but IMO the Elan 7N was a better camera to use then any consumer digital currently on the market. I'll miss the Elan's speed and viewfinder.

I also hate how loud my Sigma zoom AF motor is, the USM on the Canon was well worth the money. Plus the Canon EFS reach is long enough that it would mate much better with a future 24-70L.

[Jwreich]

Chad,

I want to see some shots from you weekend Chicago shoot with the 10-22....

[Layston]

nOOb here so shoot me if I'm out of line, but how do people feel about the Sigma 12-24? It's $590 from sigma4less.com. I bought a 55-200 here and it's fun for a cheap lens. I wouldn't call it quality but for $125 it got me started with a tele-zoom for now. I kind of want to get something on the order of an 18-135.

I'm also heading to China at the beginning of August on a business trip and I'm hoping to find some good bargains there. I've heard that where I'm going there is a huge electronics market including camera equipment....

[Chris G]

I went for the Tokina. I might have gone for the Canon but didn't want to spend that much money. No regrets.

Here are some photos I took when I first got it.

http://911cg.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album04

[Hipgrncln]

Why did everyone rule out the Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 IS USM ?????

Bob J

[GeneMan88]

I bought the Tokina 12-24 f/4 from B&H just to try a different brand (own Canon & Tamron lenses)... after reading many reviews, I felt I made a good choice. But I didn't realize how good of a choice 'til I got the lens. It takes some incredible photos... and they're W-I-D-E almost fish-eye sometimes. Now, I can't use any EF-S lenses (they don't fit the 10D), so I can't compare to the 10-22. Here are a couple of photos I took while visiting Mt. Saint Helens this past week-end, both were taken at the 12mm end. The observation area is about 5 miles from the mountain... so it's pretty close. I love this lens... great build and feel, plus the price isn't all too bad.

[Jwreich]

Why did everyone rule out the Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 IS USM ?????

Bob J

Honestly, I ruled it out because it was too long of a zoom. That isn't bad, but I was focused on wide and short so it never my may search results. I don't see a reason it would be a bad choice...

--

[SeanH]

It's just hard to go from $500 - $800.
--

But maybe consider the whole time you will own the lense, and every shot you will take with it..........do you want them ALL to be just OK, or great.

[ed rader]

>>>But maybe consider the whole time you will own the lense, and every shot you will take with it..........do you want them ALL to be just OK, or great.

__________________
20D
300 4.0 L
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L
10-22
50 1.8 <<

LOL! that's what you tell yourself to justify spending the big bucks.

not everyone thinks like you and many of those will be happy with whatever they purchase for many years to come.

ed rader

[condyk]

10-22...unless your not 1.6. Other than that your wasting your money, the 10-22 is the lens that should have a "L" after it. [/url]

I think your shots are primarily made by your own talent. I would expect you to get similar results with a number of excellent wide lenses at less cost.

So, to me, those are very nice compositions that make use of the exceptional width of a very fine lens ... but I would expect the same technical quality from a number of the recommendations here, even though they couldn't obviously achieve the 10mm width, or perhaps the composition, you have.

What I am saying is that there are several exceptional lenses around at more friendly prices than the 10-22mm if you don't need or want 10mm. The OP would not be wasting their money on any of them. I would go for the Tokina and save the $300. I've seen enough decent shots to know it has the quality I would demand. Besides, $300 buys a hell of a lot of chocolate :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Jwreich]

There are a few more votes for the Tokina. Looks like I'm moving closer in that direction.

[richardho11]

I thnk I would rather work an extra day and stick with the 10-22. If your gonna go wide, you might as well get the widest one they make. Plus its made by Canon for your canon camera, so you know its going to work flawlessly and I love the ultra fast USM! Also it has gotten some really great reviews : http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=221&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

Just my opinion. :lol:

[SeanH]

>>>But maybe consider the whole time you will own the lense, and every shot you will take with it..........do you want them ALL to be just OK, or great.

__________________
20D
300 4.0 L
24-70 2.8L
70-200 2.8L
10-22
50 1.8 <<

LOL! that's what you tell yourself to justify spending the big bucks.

not everyone thinks like you and many of those will be happy with whatever they purchase for many years to come.

ed rader

The old man always said....."if your gonna do something do it right, or don't do it at all". Yes your right I don't take the risk of settling for 2nd best. And yes your right again, some people would be happy with whatever they purchase........I'm not one of them. My opinion is indeed what I would buy myself, and myself I could never risk getting that "once in a lifetime shot",only to get it home and find it was soft and have to wonder if it would have been better if I had only bought the better glass...........I'm just funny that way :wink:

[ed rader]

>>>The old man always said....."if your gonna do something do it right, or don't do it at all". Yes your right I don't take the risk of settling for 2nd best. And yes your right again, some people would be happy with whatever they purchase........I'm not one of them. My opinion is indeed what I would buy myself, and myself I could never risk getting that "once in a lifetime shot",only to get it home and find it was soft and have to wonder if it would have been better if I had only bought the better glass...........I'm just funny that way :wink:<<<

hey sean, i am funny in that way too with some things too. i like expensive automatic watches that keep time worse than a $29 quartz that you can buy at walmart.

from what i read on these forums the expensive lenses can be just as problematic as the third party lenses that have equal to better optical quality.

case in point: my first and only canon L lens died after 50 shots an hour after i got it. i have never had any of my tokinas or tamrons die one me ever.

also, my first drebel was DOA -- err 99 from the get go.

we have to be able to convince ourselves somehow and apparently you found what works for you....and i what works for me :).

happy shooting :cool: .

ed rader

[JulianL]

If you want true wide angle effects you won't get it at 17mm with a 1.6x crop digital camera.

I put my 17-40 f/4 on my Elan 7 body and I can really see wide angle. 17mm looks like a normal 28mm lens on a digital though.

I'd go for the 10-22mm Canon lens.

[JulianL]

>>><<<

hey sean, i am funny in that way too with some things too. i like expensive automatic watches that keep time worse than a $29 quartz that you can buy at walmart.

from what i read on these forums the expensive lenses can be just as problematic as the third party lenses that have equal to better optical quality.

case in point: my first and only canon L lens died after 50 shots an hour after i got it. i have never had any of my tokinas or tamrons die one me ever.

also, my first drebel was DOA -- err 99 from the get go.

we have to be able to convince ourselves somehow and apparently you found what works for you....and i what works for me :).

happy shooting :cool: .

ed rader

I've never had a problem with any L lens I've owned.

I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about owning an L lens-wishing they'd bought a Sigma or a Tokina instead. The worst thing I've heard is someone seeing a spec inside the lens. Hell, there's a spec on the inside of my 70-200 but it doesn't show up in the photos so I don't care. It is an awesome piece of glass.

[ed rader]

>>I honestly don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about owning an L lens-wishing they'd bought a Sigma or a Tokina instead. The worst thing I've heard is someone seeing a spec inside the lens. Hell, there's a spec on the inside of my 70-200 but it doesn't show up in the photos so I don't care. It is an awesome piece of glass.<<

you're living a sheltered life if you have not heard complaints about L lenses or guys selling their Ls to buy sigmas, tamrons and tokinas.

my point wasn't to knock L lenses but i just don't buy the notion that one must own an L lens to get great pictures.

in fact i know that's a steaming load of hooey.

like i said i am also a watch guy. rolex owners are the same way. half buy the watch for the status and the other half pay the premium because rolex actually makes a very durable watch that holds its value.

i own rolex watches and i own an L lens. but i also own seikos and tamrons.

ed rader

[aggarcia]

Layston,
The Sigma 12-24 is a really outstanding lense. I bought it when I was looking for a ultra wide zoom. The reason most chose the Tokina over the Sigma, is that the Sigma does not have the constant F4 and cost a least $100 more - not yet in the Canon zone. Now if you ever plan to ever upgrade from a 1.6x camera to a 1.3x or FF/film then the Sigma 12-24 is the only choice.

[SeanH]

Hey Ed, I think you killed your Rebel by putting cheap glass on it.....LOL.......and by the time you put that L on it was already gone :wink:

You have got to be the only person on earth that has fried a rebel & a L lense....LOL

.....but all joking aside, did you ever consider the fact that the #99 code was being caused by a after market lense..............hmmmm........I have read that several times on this site.......food for thought..........and doesn't Sigma still make the lenses for Ritz camera, they did when I worked there 100 years ago. Fine pieces of shi.......ahhh I mean glass.......LOL. Locked up 25% of the EOS cameras you put them on. But I'm sure there much better now.....after all I see pro's using them all the time...ha ha ha. But I will give you Tamron, but only the 28-75 2.8 and the 90 Macro. That 90mm has been a fantasic lens all the way back to my T90 days, and I have myself thought about the 28-75 for a walk around lens, I have seen some great work with it. However I will agree that with the talent some of these guys have with PS you can make anything look good. But until I get photoshop down I guess I will have to buy the Canon lenses......notice I didn't just say L's
Oh and BTW.......I have a Seiko........but I also drive a BMW......so I'm not sure were that put's me......LOL

Happy shoting to you also! And in the end it all about what makes you enjoy taking photo's :smile:

[ed rader]

>>.....but all joking aside, did you ever consider the fact that the #99 code was being caused by a after market lense..............hmmmm........I have read that several times on this site.......food for thought..........<<

sean -- the drebel came with A CANON kit lens. i also had a canon 24-85 that also would not work on the camera... err 99. i did not own any third party lenses at the time.

of course before the camera was sent to canon i had it checked out by the shop that sold my in-laws the camera (it was a gift).

trust me, the drebel was DOA. DEAD ON ARRIVAL. and it had never had anything but a canon lens on it.

ed rader

here's the type of seikos i collect. this is a 25-year-old 6309 diver that has been restored and fitted with a custom sapphire crystal.

this is the same watch ed harris wore in the abyss and a generation after the 6105 seiko diver martin sheen wore in apocalypse now.

you're not wearing a costco seiko with that beemer and those L lenses are you.....that would be so....so... ghetto :cool: :cool:.

http://www.fototime.com/23F70C9D96D9287/orig.jpg

[SeanH]

Hey Ed.......LMAO

Here's my 27 year old, non restored, replaced... non fiting band, Seiko that I use when mine needs a new battery.......too funny. Your alright in my book :wink:

[ed rader]

sean -- well how about that :D ?

http://www.fototime.com/140CA805E74D635/orig.jpg

i'm off to monterey for a couple of days for food, dog beaches and plenty of pics. see ya :cool: !

ed rader

[Jwreich]

Thanks everyone!

[ScottE]

I have a Canon 17-40, but found that it was not wide enough on my 20D. It certainly isn't the "super wide" you say you are looking for. On my 35 mm camera it does qualify as a good super wide lens.

My solution was the Canon 10-22. It is the equivalen to using 16-35 on the 35 mm camera.

I chose it over the other lenses you mention because it is super wide, the image quality is comparable to the "L" glass of the 17-40 and it has USM autofocu that permits full time manual override.

Sigma is bringing out a 10-20 that should have similar qualities, but until it hits the stores it is just "vapour ware" for usefulness.

[zacker]

nice shots chris G.. but why did more people look at the pic of the Blond than the rest of them??
lol
good luck with the new lens!
-zacker-

[JulianL]

I own a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and while it takes decent photos it is heavy, slow to focus and noisy. The barrel binds when you zoom it in close and it is not weather sealed. I'm not fond of the 82mm filter size either. Also it is too easy to mistakenly go from auto focus to manual focus and it creeps if the lens is pointing down.

Oh, I have a Citizen watch and I drive a '96 Isuzu Rodeo I paid $3k for. ;)

[kawter2]

Why did everyone rule out the Canon 17-85 F4-5.6 IS USM ?????

Bob J


because it is not SUPER wide on a 20d.. 17mm x's 1.6cf = 27.2mm

27.2mm [not = to] super wide

[MadMesh]

haha, first Tokina picture i opened of the building had lots of CA! Im actually glad i stuck it out and went with the 10-22. I dont think ill have any regrets... Im not plannin on sellin my 20D, since its an outstanding camera. And on a Wide end lens like that, I rather pay the extra to know i got the quality and engineering to match the needs of a DSLR w/ 1.6 Crop.

Im just hoping my copy is as sharp as can be!

[MrChad]

Chad,

I want to see some shots from you weekend Chicago shoot with the 10-22....
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/12/web/276000-276999/276824_116_full.jpg

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/12/web/276000-276999/276824_117_full.jpg

http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/12/web/276000-276999/276824_118_full.jpg

direct from Drebel no post, sorry the site is a bit low res....

[xuxu1]

Maybe 17-40L?

Well it ain´t "Super wide" either. But for many it´s wide enough. Besides it has a very good (build) quality.

ED

[MadMesh]

I figure the ONLY real wide lens for an APC-C sensor is the 10-22. I just forked out the $ and called it a day. It wasnt worth the stress for me freakin out, is the Tamron better, is the Sigma better, what has less CA, which lens is gona fall off for sharpness. I got the 10-22 b/c it helps me sleep better at night. There the saying, "do it right or dont do it at all."

At least i have the peice of mind, Resale is good, engineered product for my 20D, I know the performance is there. Optics are built to "L" standards. + to save $275 bucks buying a non canon brand for a lens that has so much optic demand, dont really make sence. If you sold one photo, it would cover the cost. + ITS FREAKIN WIDE!!!!!!!!

[Outdoor23]

I think Sigma is coming out with a 10-20..not sure if you want to wait for that?!?!

[Joe R]

I have owned 2 copies of the Canon 10-22mm, and now own the Tokina 12-24mm. The focusing on the Canon is snappier. The build quality of the Tokina is better than the Canon, and the optical performance is on par. As I mostly use this lens in manual focus for landscapes, I am extremely happy with the Tokina, and also happy with the extra $250 in my pocket. :)

[OceanView]

I have owned 2 copies of the Canon 10-22mm, and now own the Tokina 12-24mm. The focusing on the Canon is snappier. The build quality of the Tokina is better than the Canon, and the optical performance is on par. As I mostly use this lens in manual focus for landscapes, I am extremely happy with the Tokina, and also happy with the extra $250 in my pocket. :)

IS the Tokina a manual focus only?

[kawter2]

IS the Tokina a manual focus only?


Nope.. full af

[Joe R]

To clarify - the Tokina is of course an AF lens. The only thing better about the Canon is the AF performance is a little bit snappier. This isn't a big deal to me, as I usually have the lens set on manual focus for landscape shooting.

[Priit G]

I will soon have to decide between two WA lenses - the Tokina or the Sigma. So thanks for this thread.
The Tokina pros for me lie in constant F4 (althoughit better used stopped down) and the 77mm filter thread - for my polarizer (although plastic).

The only obvious Sigma pro really seems to be it's full frame (35mm) compatibility.
Sigma is reported to have some problems with quality control, other than that both are reported to be exellent.

But is the difference (if there is any) in optical quality remarkable enough to be mentioned?

[danielr]

hmmm there are so many options now really if you don't need ultra wide but it is still good lol

Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, tokina 12-24, sigma 12-24, tamron 11-18, canon 17-40 & 16-35, tamron 17-35 then more primes like the tokina 17 pro and the 15mm fisheyes whoooaaahhh so many choices and i know i have missed a lot....

[yltan]

Well, I am in Penang, Malaysia, and my local dealer quoted me at about USD630 for the EFS 10-22, the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 is about the same price too. At that price, it is a no-brainer to go for the EFS 10-22.

[yltan]

By the way if you are interested in super-wide pictures, try this thread at Fred Miranda's forum:-

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/241570/0