Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 08 Jun 2010 (Tuesday) 00:10
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

 
Craggles123
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
339 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Jun 09, 2010 04:39 as a reply to post 10329650 |  #16

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 Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
capital50
Member
54 posts
Joined May 2010
Jun 09, 2010 10:12 |  #17

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


Canon 5D mk III
Canon 7D
Canon 70-200 L 2.8, Canon 24-70 L , Canon 16-35 L F4, Nifty Fifty
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/capital-photography/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
nureality
Goldmember
3,611 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Jun 09, 2010 11:45 |  #18

capital50 wrote in post #10330876external link
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 | external linkflickrexternal link
Lots of Fun, Lots of Laughs, Happy Trigger Finger!

LOG IN TO REPLY
fedaykin
Senior Member
fedaykin's Avatar
312 posts
Joined Apr 2010
San Juan, PR
Jun 09, 2010 12:03 as a reply to nureality's post |  #19

Kiwikat wrote in post #10329650external link
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 Blogexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
aboss3
Goldmember
aboss3's Avatar
2,616 posts
Joined Jan 2010
LOS ANGELES
Jun 09, 2010 12:12 |  #20
banned

+1 for Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 ......only if you can find one that is in stock :p
In fact, last week they were in stock at B&H


Gear | My gear is changing faster than I can update the signature
VoyageEyewearexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
capital50
Member
54 posts
Joined May 2010
Jun 09, 2010 12:20 |  #21

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


I am confused !!

well I have just seen this : http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=1XRCY0aTN_gexternal link i got what u ment by the cap thread thing .. !


Canon 5D mk III
Canon 7D
Canon 70-200 L 2.8, Canon 24-70 L , Canon 16-35 L F4, Nifty Fifty
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/capital-photography/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Joe ­ Ravenstein
Goldmember
2,338 posts
Joined Mar 2010
E Tx
Jun 09, 2010 12:29 |  #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

LOG IN TO REPLY
Michaelmjc
not cool enough
Michaelmjc's Avatar
4,832 posts
Joined May 2004
Toronto, Ontario
Jun 10, 2010 08:01 |  #23

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 Designexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Combatmedic870
Goldmember
Combatmedic870's Avatar
1,739 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Salem ,OR
Jun 11, 2010 17:54 |  #24

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

bw!
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.:oops:

LOG IN TO REPLY
Irfan
Member
131 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Columbus, OH
Jun 12, 2010 12:38 |  #25

DANATTHEROCK wrote in post #10322537external link
10mm is WIDE... don't doubt that. Not sure what you would do with 8mm. Look backwards:)

well, 10 is WIDE, 8 is WIIIDE ? :)




LOG IN TO REPLY
Combatmedic870
Goldmember
Combatmedic870's Avatar
1,739 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Salem ,OR
Jun 12, 2010 13:44 |  #26

Irfan wrote in post #10349100external link
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 bw!


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.:oops:

LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
kobeson's Avatar
1,065 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Melbourne, Australia
Jun 30, 2010 03:18 |  #27

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?


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
kobeson's Avatar
1,065 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Melbourne, Australia
Jul 08, 2010 01:44 |  #28

nureality wrote in post #10331456external link
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 #10329165external link
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!!!


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
shanec26
Member
100 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Mississippi
Aug 12, 2010 11:51 |  #29

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=1external link

CA performance seems much better withe the Sigma.

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


Canon 50D | Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS | Tokina 11-16mm f2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
soleful2001
Senior Member
soleful2001's Avatar
342 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Pleasant Garden NC
Aug 12, 2010 12:08 |  #30

Craggles123 wrote in post #10329165external link
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/external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

32,697 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00363 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is In-Slay-We-Trust
962 guests, 702 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5577, that happened on Mar 02, 2016