Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 9th of June 2010 (Wed)   #16
Craggles123
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 339
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

yer i kinda ignored that, the sigma and tokina can be had for very similar prices

thanks for the input, im still undecided on wether i want the extra zoom of the canon and also wether i want that bulbous lens on the sigma.

need to find someone in aus who has one so i can play with it
__________________
| Canon 5DmkIII | Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS IIL | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 430EX II|
My Flickr
Craggles123 is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 9th of June 2010 (Wed)   #17
capital50
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 54
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

photozone called it : "the new star" in UWA .. and the review there is stunning about this lens.
but i think there are 2 faults :
f/4,5 vs canon f/3.5 vs the Toki f/2.8
filter can't be fixed on this lens.. Consider this for as a landscape lens!! that lovely nd filter effects are kind of impossible
I am considering buying this one since the Toki most of time is out of stock ....but still need to think again in the canon 10-22
capital50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of June 2010 (Wed)   #18
nureality
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,611
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

Quote:
Originally Posted by capital50 View Post
photozone called it : "the new star" in UWA .. and the review there is stunning about this lens.
but i think there are 2 faults :
f/4,5 vs canon f/3.5 vs the Toki f/2.8
filter can't be fixed on this lens.. Consider this for as a landscape lens!! that lovely nd filter effects are kind of impossible
I am considering buying this one since the Toki most of time is out of stock ....but still need to think again in the canon 10-22
Filters most definitely can be used with the Sigma 8-16. Just like on its big brother the 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 DG EX HSM, the lens comes with a slide-on filter-thread holding ring. This ring is what the lens cap snaps into. Using that thread used for the lens cap you can use filters... on my Sigma 12-24 I've used Cokin Z-Pro filters for years.

Being an owner of both a Sigma 12-24 and a Tokina 11-16, I can say that the Tokina has better IQ than the Sigma 12-24... but the Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm on a film body or FF digital is the reason to own the lens. The Sigma 8-16 is a reworked version of the 12-24 for crops... 8mm UWA on a crop is about equivalent of 12mm on FF. And to the doubters all I gotta say is... "once you try it, you will want it". I will most definitely be getting an 8-16 this summer... to round out the family.

I'd NEVER buy the Canon 10-22... I think they are pointless. the 17-22mm that many 10-22 owners tout are really superfluous in such a lens. If you really think about it, its because of those 17-22mm that Canon couldn't make it a f/3.5 throughout the range, if not faster. The "telephoto" end of a UWA shouldn't be your priority in buying such a lens, and is quite oxymoronic if you think about it... yet every 10-22 owner lists it as a "benefit". I think the 10-22 buyers were just afraid to step away from OEM and are now justifying their decision with rubbish.

If you need a UWA, get the Sigma 8-16 if you want the widest imaginable lens for crop or the Tokina 11-16 if you need the most creatively freeing (albeit less wide and with limited range). One thing is for sure with both of these lenses, if you don't have a lens that starts at 17 or 18mm as your main zoom, the "gap" from 16mm to wherever your next lens starts is a PITA. These lenses pair will with 17-55's and 17-50's.
__________________
Alan "NuReality" Fronshtein
Gear List | PBase | flickr
Lots of Fun, Lots of Laughs, Happy Trigger Finger!
nureality is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 9th of June 2010 (Wed)   #19
fedaykin
Member
 
fedaykin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 312
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwikat View Post
I've got no idea what you are talking about...

Even if you CAN find it in stock, it has been goin for at least 600 dollars. Some places have it over 700 dollars. That is hardly "much cheaper", and in some cases, not cheaper at all.

So far the reviews and images from the Sigma are showing it to be perhaps the best lens in the UWA class. Unless you (OP) need f/2.8 (which you don't) the Sigma would be your ticket. It is DEFINITELY in my future. I'd get it over the Canon 10-22 every time.
Ah, I was misinformed about the price, though it was $1,300, my bad.
__________________
|Canon EOS Rebel XS(gripped)|Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8(non-VC)|EF 50mm f/1.8 II|EF 85mm f.1.8|Lumopro LP160 flash
My Blog
Flickr
fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of June 2010 (Wed)   #20
aboss3
User is banned from forums
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 2,616
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

+1 for Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 ......only if you can find one that is in stock
In fact, last week they were in stock at B&H
aboss3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of June 2010 (Wed)   #21
capital50
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 54
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

Quote:
Filters most definitely can be used with the Sigma 8-16. Just like on its big brother the 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 DG EX HSM, the lens comes with a slide-on filter-thread holding ring. This ring is what the lens cap snaps into. Using that thread used for the lens cap you can use filters... on my Sigma 12-24 I've used Cokin Z-Pro filters for years.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...specifications
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...specifications


I am confused !!

well I have just seen this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XRCY0aTN_g i got what u ment by the cap thread thing .. !

Last edited by capital50 : 9th of June 2010 (Wed) at 12:23.
capital50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th of June 2010 (Wed)   #22
Joe Ravenstein
Goldmember
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: E Tx
Posts: 2,338
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

I have one of the Sigma 8mm-16mm UWA lens and I am impressed with its IQ. We have a load of very scenic overlooks on the Cumberland plateau that fueled my desire for this Sigma lens and it doesn't disappoint although it would be nice to be able to use a haze filter. I have not tried to mount a filter on the two piece "lenshood" but it sounds feasable except it will vignette tremendously on the widest end
__________________
Canon 60D,18-55mm,55-250mm,50mm compact macro, AF ext tubes. Sigma 8-16mm uwa, 18-250mm, 85mm F1.4, 150-500mm
Joe Ravenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th of June 2010 (Thu)   #23
Michaelmjc
not cool enough
 
Michaelmjc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 4,832
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

I work at a camera shop and the Sigma Rep came in with that lens the other day. Man is it ever incredible. I stood in the corner and was able to get the entire store plus my feet in the shot. Definitely get the 8-16.
__________________
Yyz Design
Michaelmjc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th of June 2010 (Fri)   #24
Combatmedic870
Senior Member
 
Combatmedic870's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Salem ,OR
Posts: 1,739
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeree View Post
yup 8-16... did you buy it yet?

Exactly! Like I said at the start!
__________________
Nikon D700: 16-35 F4, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8,105 VR Micro, 135F2 DC, 80-200 2.8 AFS
Olympus XZ-1
,Ryan
Sometimes, I think Photography is worse than Crack.
Combatmedic870 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of June 2010 (Sat)   #25
Irfan
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 131
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

Quote:
Originally Posted by DANATTHEROCK View Post

10mm is WIDE... don't doubt that. Not sure what you would do with 8mm. Look backwards
well, 10 is WIDE, 8 is WIIIDE ?
Irfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of June 2010 (Sat)   #26
Combatmedic870
Senior Member
 
Combatmedic870's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Salem ,OR
Posts: 1,739
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irfan View Post
well, 10 is WIDE, 8 is WIIIDE ?
Agreed once again...I think you would do with 8 the same thing you would do with 10....also doing forget that the 8-16 also has 10 in it
__________________
Nikon D700: 16-35 F4, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8,105 VR Micro, 135F2 DC, 80-200 2.8 AFS
Olympus XZ-1
,Ryan
Sometimes, I think Photography is worse than Crack.
Combatmedic870 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th of June 2010 (Wed)   #27
kobeson
Senior Member
 
kobeson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,027
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

Is the strike rate of 8-16's being GOOD high? I hear about some Sigma lenses requiring adjustments? And which out of the 2 is sharper in the centre and at the edges?
Also, is CA an issue on the Sigma? I hear it can be on the 10-22?
kobeson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 8th of July 2010 (Thu)   #28
kobeson
Senior Member
 
kobeson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,027
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

Quote:
Originally Posted by nureality View Post
I'd NEVER buy the Canon 10-22... I think they are pointless. the 17-22mm that many 10-22 owners tout are really superfluous in such a lens. If you really think about it, its because of those 17-22mm that Canon couldn't make it a f/3.5 throughout the range, if not faster. The "telephoto" end of a UWA shouldn't be your priority in buying such a lens, and is quite oxymoronic if you think about it... yet every 10-22 owner lists it as a "benefit". I think the 10-22 buyers were just afraid to step away from OEM and are now justifying their decision with rubbish.
From what I gather, and if I were to buy the Canon - I think the extra 17-22 range is an added advantage to those that don't want to keep on having to change lenses. Of course if you specifically intend to shoot in ONLY UWA ranges, then you probably would not need to change the lens. But for my purposes, I could see the 17-22 on the end becoming quite handy, and this is the sole reason I would go with the Canon over the 8-16 or 11-16.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craggles123 View Post
Does anyone suspect I will miss the extra zoom of the Canon?

Just wish the sigma didnt have the stupid bulbous lens/built in lens hood but im sure I could learn to live with it for better images
This is the reason why I would not choose the Sigma out of the three. The limited range of the Tokina would be the sole reason I would not choose the Tokina, and The lack of sharp images corner to corner would be against the Canon. I wonder which of those 3 reasons would be the most significant?


Which lens did you end up buying? Or did you not deicde yet Craggles?

I have found the Canon in the local stores here in Australia, but haven't found the Sigma or Tokina yet - although haven't looked a whole heap yet.

Here is my summary:

PROs Canon:
10-22 range
Can take filters

PROs Tokina:
Sharp
Can take filters

PROs Sigma:
Sharp
Widest of all

CONs Canon:
Soft, esp at corners
Some CA evident

CONs Tokina:
Limited range
Some CA evident

CONs Sima:
Bulb lens sticking out


Why can't somebody bloody combine all the good things into one damn lens!!!
kobeson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of August 2010 (Thu)   #29
shanec26
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 100
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

I'm looking into this now as well. The review here says you can't put filters on the Sigma due to the bulb shaped lens sticking beyond the rim of the lens. This might be a deal breaker for me. Landscapes are the my most common use of a polarizer. And by most common, I mean "only".

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/51...56apsc?start=1

CA performance seems much better withe the Sigma.

How about the Tamaron 10-24? I've yet to look at that one.
shanec26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th of August 2010 (Thu)   #30
soleful2001
Member
 
soleful2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Pleasant Garden NC
Posts: 342
Default Re: Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craggles123 View Post
Does anyone suspect I will miss the extra zoom of the Canon?

Just wish the sigma didnt have the stupid bulbous lens/built in lens hood but im sure I could learn to live with it for better images

Sole purpose of the lens will be landscape btw
I do not believe you will miss the extra length on the canon. I rarely use the 24mm on my Tamron 10-24. That Sigma looks SWEET. Definitely go with the widest, IMHO. The Tokina is fine but angle-of-view difference between Tokina and Sigma is quite significant.
__________________
Canon 50D, Tamron 10-24, Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro, Canon 28mm f1.8, Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens,Tamron Di VC 70-200 f2.8,Tamron 2x teleconvertor
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soleful2001/
soleful2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB: Sigma 10mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Sigma 20mm f/1.8, Canon 85mm f/1.8 gisk Classifieds: Buy 1 11th of August 2009 (Tue) 20:29
Canon 50 1.4, vs Sigma 50 1.4. Final verdict. Anti sigma bias? kevindar Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 13 28th of October 2008 (Tue) 19:48


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.