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

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 wrote in post #10330876
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.

Kiwikat wrote in post #10329650
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.

+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

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com ...C_HSM.html#specific​ations
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com ...rical.html#specific​ations


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 .. !

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

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.

jeree wrote in post #10345232
yup 8-16... did you buy it yet?

Exactly! Like I said at the start!

DANATTHEROCK wrote in post #10322537
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 wrote in post #10349100
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

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?

nureality wrote in post #10331456
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.

Craggles123 wrote in post #10329165
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!!!

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.d​e ...sigma816f4556apsc?s​tart=1

CA performance seems much better withe the Sigma.

How about the Tamaron 10-24? I've yet to look at that one.

Craggles123 wrote in post #10329165
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.