Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
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
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

 
ralff
Senior Member
766 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: Asheville NC
     
Aug 28, 2010 11:05 as a reply to  @ post 10805779 |  #46

I love my Canon 10-22, I shoot landscapes and would not buy any lens I could not attatch a filter to. The Canon is WIDE at the 10MM end and focuses very close to make some dramatic shots, but have to be careful in composing at the wide end to prevent converging lines etc. can't imagine what the extra 2MM will do. Watch you don't get your tripod legs in the frame, easy to do at first. As far as objections to the permanently attactcehd lens hood, you WILL need it, not only does it prevent flare, it also provides some protedtion for that HUGE front element. wHAEVER YOU GET HAVE FUN!


Canon 6D - Canon 7D - gripped, Canon 50D - gripped, EFS10-22mm, 17-40 f4 L, nifty-fifty, EF 28-135mm IS, 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM, Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 ProD Macro, Benbo Trekker, Feisol 3371 w/ Kirk BH-3 ball head - Epson Pic-Mate, Epson 2200, Epson 3880 :D http://www.flickr.com/​photos/WNC_Ralph (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Aug 31, 2010 00:04 |  #47

rkkwan wrote in post #10805543 (external link)
I have used all three. Canon for about a year, Tokina 1.5, and Sigma since it came out. Used on many trips on the first two, and a long 2-month trip to Asia including 3 weeks in Tibet with the Sigma.

First about some misinformation I read in this thread. Forget using a filter on the Sigma. If you leave that plastic ring on the lens, you'll find vignetting even at 16mm, and basically looking through a circle at 8mm. Also, the Sigma is not big and heavy. It has the smallest diameter and is the easiest to carry around among the three lenses, especially if you add the mandatory hoods of the Canon or Tokina. It is also lighter than the Tokina.

Now to my subjective impressions:

Canon - Best flare control and least distortion. Quietest and quickest focusing, though it is not that important in this type of lenses.

Tokina - Sharpest. Most prone to flare. Significant barrel distortion at 11mm - though goes away quickly at around 12, the other two has little or no barrel at 11. And then my original lens that I had used on the 40D for 1.5 year won't focus properly on the 7D, and neither would a replacement from Tokina. So, 7D owners beware.

Sigma - In general, it controls flare fairly well - note that flares often show as one light single-color patch, PLUS one very small, but very bright tri-color spot that is very visible. If that little spot (only a few pixels in diameter) falls in the right place, it can easily be removed with post-processing. It is not as sharp as the Tokina, but is sharp enough for me. There is some barrel at 8mm, but less than the Tokina at 11mm. I have read some reviews that say there's some complex barrel/pincushion at certain focal length, which may be true. It is not for critical architectural work.

Anyways, if my Tokina had been focusing properly on my 7D, I wouldn't have switched. But since I have switched, I am also very happy with the Sigma and am not switching to anything else. I love the sharpness of the Tokina, but 2.8 while very nice turns out to be a little less important since my 7D has better high-ISO than my previous 400D and 40D.

It's great to get an opinion from somebody who has spent plenty of time with more than one of the UWA lenses available for the EOS cameras.

I am wondering if you could elaborate on your thoughts on the Canon lens in comparison to the other 2 - is there much loss in sharpness? How about corner softness on the Canon?

Which would yoe recommend for somebody with the 2 kit lenses on a 550D?


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 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
bigpow
Senior Member
708 posts
Likes: 13
Joined May 2002
     
Aug 31, 2010 00:14 |  #48

before sigma released 8-16, I was convinced I'd get 10-22 at some point in time.
Now, not so sure anymore.


[5DM2: 50L, 100L, 24-105L, 70-200/2.8IS L II, Zeiss 2/35 ZE]
[Fuji X100S] [Sony A7 II: 55/1.8, 28-70]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rkkwan
Member
134 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Aug 31, 2010 09:24 |  #49

kobeson wrote in post #10820889 (external link)
It's great to get an opinion from somebody who has spent plenty of time with more than one of the UWA lenses available for the EOS cameras.

I am wondering if you could elaborate on your thoughts on the Canon lens in comparison to the other 2 - is there much loss in sharpness? How about corner softness on the Canon?

Which would yoe recommend for somebody with the 2 kit lenses on a 550D?

The Canon is pretty sharp. I can't compare directly as I've switched body along with my lenses and some of the 10-22 shots were JPG only. It is not as sharp as the Tokina, but definitely respectable, and I didn't notice any soft corners. Can't say whether the Canon or the Sigma is sharper. At one time I was using the 10-22 with a 17-85, and the 10-22 is significantly sharper, and has way less distortion between 17mm to 22mm, so the extra range of the 10-22 is great. But later I sold the 17-85 to get the 17-55/2.8 which in turn is sharper than the 10-22.

All three of those lenses have its strength and weakness, so you have to decide on your own.

[And let me add that I bought the Tokina when it first came out, at MSRP of about $550. I actually pocketed some cash as I could sell my Canon for more (which I made a profit as prices keep going up). So, it made sense for me to get a very sharp lens with 2.8 while pocketing cash. But the Tokina is costlier now. Also, if you plan on getting the 7D, you better stay away from the Tokina (my own experience).]


rkkwan.zenfolio.com (external link)
5D/BG-E4; 70-200/2.8L IS II, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 28-75 Asph, Tokina 10-17 Fish, 1.4x III; 580EX II; G7 X
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jacobsen1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,629 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Mt View, RI
     
Aug 31, 2010 10:25 as a reply to  @ rkkwan's post |  #50

rkkwan wrote in post #10805543 (external link)
First about some misinformation I read in this thread. Forget using a filter on the Sigma. If you leave that plastic ring on the lens, you'll find vignetting even at 16mm, and basically looking through a circle at 8mm.

since that's aimed at me I'll reply. You CAN use filters on the 8-16mm and had you clicked my link you'd see how. I did preface that comment with it being a PITA, but it IS possible. I've done it with the 12-24mm on FF and nikon's 14-24mm as well (much bigger lens even if it's "only" 14mm)... Watch this video, it'll show you how:
http://gear.benjacobse​nphoto.com …s-that-cant-take-filters/ (external link)

Also, the Sigma is not big and heavy. It has the smallest diameter and is the easiest to carry around among the three lenses, especially if you add the mandatory hoods of the Canon or Tokina. It is also lighter than the Tokina.

as for the size/weight, it's got the smallest diameter sure, but it's the longest and it's heavier than all but the tokina:
8-16mm: 550g 75x105mm 7875
10-24: 410g 83x84mm 6972
10-20: 3.5 520g 87x88mm 7656
10-20v: 460g 84x81mm 6804
10-22: 380g 83x90mm 7470
11-16: 560g 77x89mm 6853

if you go by the volume (assuming the lenses are perfect cylinders, which the siggy is close to but the others are not) the 8-16 is the biggest lens there and it's the second heaviest. So yes, I stand by my biggest and heaviest remark, OK, I was slightly off on heaviest but it's still very close to right.... They're all relatively small/light, but the weight is a pretty big difference between the canon and the 11-16 and 8-16mm for me. The 10-22 is comically light really.

and just FYI, I've owned the 12-24mm version, the 11-16mm and the 10-22, so I'm familiar with 2 of them personally and the 8-16mm is VERY similar to the 12-24mm in design.

as was mentioned in another thread though, the 10-20 works with a 1.4 TC on FF. I'd love to see how the 8-16mm and 10-22 act with the same TC. You need the tamron TC because it's element is recessed and I'd bet the 10-22 needs and EF conversion (mine has been done) but I'd be curious to see how the 8-16 holds up as it'd be a 11.2-22.4mm. Slightly wider, but it's sharper in the corners so it'd be fun to see if it could hold that sharpness with a TC in the mix. I'm considering swapping some lenses around here to get a 5Dc and 1.4 TC myself so I can see how it does. The 10-22 would be a 14-31mm, but what could be really fun is if it still takes panel filters via the threads in the front... 14mm with normal old panel filters and possibly less distortion than the 17-40? Yes please, but a pipe dream as well. I know the 10-20 works on FF and looks pretty damn good stopped down though so it's not impossible.


My Gear List

my sites:
benjacobsenphoto.com (external link) | newschoolofphotography​.com (external link)
GND buyers FAQ

FOR SALE: 5Dii RRS L-bracket, 430II, 12mm macro tube PM ME!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rkkwan
Member
134 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Aug 31, 2010 10:47 |  #51

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10822930 (external link)
since that's aimed at me I'll reply. You CAN use filters on the 8-16mm and had you clicked my link you'd see how. I did preface that comment with it being a PITA, but it IS possible. I've done it with the 12-24mm on FF and nikon's 14-24mm as well (much bigger lens even if it's "only" 14mm)... Watch this video, it'll show you how:
http://gear.benjacobse​nphoto.com …s-that-cant-take-filters/ (external link)

as for the size/weight, it's got the smallest diameter sure, but it's the longest and it's heavier than all but the tokina:
8-16mm: 550g 75x105mm 7875
10-24: 410g 83x84mm 6972
10-20: 3.5 520g 87x88mm 7656
10-20v: 460g 84x81mm 6804
10-22: 380g 83x90mm 7470
11-16: 560g 77x89mm 6853

if you go by the volume (assuming the lenses are perfect cylinders, which the siggy is close to but the others are not) the 8-16 is the biggest lens there and it's the second heaviest. So yes, I stand by my biggest and heaviest remark, OK, I was slightly off on heaviest but it's still very close to right.... They're all relatively small/light, but the weight is a pretty big difference between the canon and the 11-16 and 8-16mm for me. The 10-22 is comically light really.

and just FYI, I've owned the 12-24mm version, the 11-16mm and the 10-22, so I'm familiar with 2 of them personally and the 8-16mm is VERY similar to the 12-24mm in design.

as was mentioned in another thread though, the 10-20 works with a 1.4 TC on FF. I'd love to see how the 8-16mm and 10-22 act with the same TC. You need the tamron TC because it's element is recessed and I'd bet the 10-22 needs and EF conversion (mine has been done) but I'd be curious to see how the 8-16 holds up as it'd be a 11.2-22.4mm. Slightly wider, but it's sharper in the corners so it'd be fun to see if it could hold that sharpness with a TC in the mix. I'm considering swapping some lenses around here to get a 5Dc and 1.4 TC myself so I can see how it does. The 10-22 would be a 14-31mm, but what could be really fun is if it still takes panel filters via the threads in the front... 14mm with normal old panel filters and possibly less distortion than the 17-40? Yes please, but a pipe dream as well. I know the 10-20 works on FF and looks pretty damn good stopped down though so it's not impossible.

1. I am not going to dig through all the replies to see who I replied to, but I was responding to someone who said one can simply mount a filter over the provided plastic extender that came with the Sigma. That will not work. If i misunderstood that premise, I apologize.

2. I have used the Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16 and now the Sigma 8-16. You can do all the volume calculation, but I will stand by my statement that the Sigma is not the heaviest and it is the easiest to carry around.

3. I have tried the Kenko 1.4x with the Sigma on a 5D, and posted some test shots on another thread. There's some light falloff in the corners at 8mm to 10mm setting as well as some uneven distortion, but more troubling is the general lack of sharpness. In my opinion, one'll be better off to simply mount the Sigma on a FF and only use it at 16mm.


rkkwan.zenfolio.com (external link)
5D/BG-E4; 70-200/2.8L IS II, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 28-75 Asph, Tokina 10-17 Fish, 1.4x III; 580EX II; G7 X
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shayneyasinski
Senior Member
657 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Canada (sask)
     
Sep 01, 2010 00:54 |  #52

My 2 cents on an UW lens is that when I use my 10-20 sig I often bump the 10mm end of the zoom and never the 20mm end.
almost all of my keeper shots are shot at 10mm .


my gear Canon 7D, Canon 5DMK2, 70-200 f2.8 IS, 50mm f1.8, canon 430 speedlight, canon 17-55 2.8 IS, canon 100mm macro sigma 10-20, Canon 17-85 , 60 cokin filters , 2x telecoverter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rkkwan
Member
134 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Sep 04, 2010 20:06 as a reply to  @ post 10805779 |  #53

Added a photo in post #40 to show tri-colored flare spot with the Sigma.


rkkwan.zenfolio.com (external link)
5D/BG-E4; 70-200/2.8L IS II, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 28-75 Asph, Tokina 10-17 Fish, 1.4x III; 580EX II; G7 X
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gagakango
Member
Avatar
166 posts
Joined May 2008
Location: west of edmonton alberta
     
Sep 04, 2010 23:44 |  #54

I like the Tokina and the 8-16. Am keeping both.


Eos m w/kit zoom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tjbrock42
Senior Member
944 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Indiana
     
Sep 10, 2010 23:44 |  #55

Anybody know how the maximum magnification compare on these two (canon 10-22 vs. sigma 8-16)? Maybe some macro(ish) shots from users?

What about an example that illustrates the difference between 8mm and 10mm on a crop sensor?

I like the idea of the 8-16 but feel like the canon will be plenty wide and allows you to easily use filters.


6D
24-105L, 50 STM, 135L, 430EX II
For Sale: 40D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rkkwan
Member
134 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Sep 11, 2010 13:45 as a reply to  @ tjbrock42's post |  #56

Maxmimum magnification for the 10-22 is 0.17x, and that's at 22mm of course. Minimum focusing distance is 0.8ft/0.24m.

8-16 is 1:7.8 i.e. (0.13x), at 16mm. Minimum focusing distance is basically the same. 8.4in/24cm.

The angle of view at 8mm is significantly wider than 10 or 11mm. One apparent difference is that it's significantly wider than 90-degree horizontal. In real life, with 10mm, it is not possible to cover wall to wall in a small to medium-sized room, even if you stand in the very corner of it. Maybe possible in a large room, since Canon says its angle of view is 97-degrees. With the Sigma, not an issue.

Here are two pics taken with the Sigma. First one at widest setting. Second with zoom set at the 10mm mark, even though the metadata says 9mm.

IMAGE: http://rkkwan.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v12/p82277014-4.jpg
IMAGE: http://rkkwan.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v10/p133999174-4.jpg

rkkwan.zenfolio.com (external link)
5D/BG-E4; 70-200/2.8L IS II, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 28-75 Asph, Tokina 10-17 Fish, 1.4x III; 580EX II; G7 X
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tjbrock42
Senior Member
944 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Indiana
     
Sep 11, 2010 21:22 |  #57

Interesting, thanks for the response.

I went to a camera store (right before they closed) and got to try the Canon 10-22, Sigma 8-16, and Tokina 11-16 each for a minute or two. Here are my initial impressions of the three:

8mm is definitely wider than 10mm. 2mm (or 3.2mm) makes a noticeable difference.

The size (weight, volume, diameter, length, and whatever else) was really a non-issue for me. They all felt about the same. At least no noticeable differences.

I was impressed with the build quality of the sigma. Zoom and focus rings felt really nice when in use (very smooth). Putting filters on this lens did not seem like a good idea. The front element is bulbous. It sticks out (kind of looks like an eye ball). Unless you have the same shape filter (like a contact lens), I would imagine it would diminish the image quality. Just a guess though. The built in hood seemed like a nice feature to me.

Very unimpressed with the canon build quality. For the price, It is hard to justify this one. Maybe the flare resistance and sharpness that other reviews have noted, will help some justify it.

The Tokina didn't really do anything to separate itself from the others in the minute or two that I played with it. I guess if you know you are going to be using it in low light, this is probably the lens for you. I'm a little afraid of the reported flare problems on this one though.

AF seemed comparable on all of them.

Overall, they all seemed pretty similar and are all most likely fine choices.

The more I think about it, the more I think I like the Sigma 8-16.


6D
24-105L, 50 STM, 135L, 430EX II
For Sale: 40D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shanec26
Member
100 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Mississippi
     
Sep 11, 2010 22:17 |  #58

You know you can't put a filter on the Sigma. That's kind of a big deal to a lot of people.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xmattkx
Junior Member
22 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Sep 12, 2010 06:45 |  #59

I have used both extensively. I have found the Sigma to be one of the sharpest UWAs I have ever used, it is relatively compact and the images are phenomenal out of it... I posted the following on FredMIranda a while back, but here are some unprocessed samples
Overall I am thrilled. Pics are without PP.

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4861038861_d7f8a1c7c6_b.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4861673006_4392f8c7ff_b.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4861687208_c48ab83082_b.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4861074207_0867f6773e_b.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/4861055171_cc191dd4de_b.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4861043153_b58da5ffef_b.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/4861047299_9929738d3b_b.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4861058347_c8189f2975_b.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xmattkx
Junior Member
22 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Sep 12, 2010 06:48 |  #60

shanec26 wrote in post #10892348 (external link)
You know you can't put a filter on the Sigma. That's kind of a big deal to a lot of people.

You can't really use a Cir-Pol on any UWA without getting wierd sky issues... Otherwise you're right, but it's a compromise I think is well worth what you get in the Sig




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

40,917 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Dirtstar
815 guests, 215 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.