Help Me Decide, Canon EF-S 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 or ?

I am looking at the Sigma 8-16 basically due to my feeling that large apertures and wide angle might not be a common combination. My planned use for the lens is architecture and indoor photos of people.
Am i wrong?

Sigma 8-16. If you're going to go wide, why screw around?

Glad you started this topic. I wanted to ask myself. I also have the 7D and want an UWA. I need it for a wide range of things though... Sunny outdoor sports shots (kitesurfing where they fly over my head, lots of fun) along with some cool artsy dancing dark indoor shots... I have had all three in my mind, Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16, and the Sigma 8-16. I like the 2.8's thats what Im hung up on... Leme know what you decide. Good luck!

Love my Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6.
Something in the glass and/or lens coating gives amazing contrast enhancement
to clouds against a blue sky. Great landscape/architecture lens.

Can 10-22 Or Tokina 12-24. Some overlap with 17-55 wil be good as it reduces lens changes.

RobinWa wrote in post #11884081
I am looking at the Sigma 8-16 basically due to my feeling that large apertures and wide angle might not be a common combination.

This is something I've seen posted quite often, but I'm not sure why. At these extreme wide angles depth of field is normally pretty huge at any aperture. At 10mm, f2.8, you can set your focus at 2m and your depth of field is, from memory, something like 1m to 18m. Using f8 isn't going to give you any more useful DoF.

I voted for the Tokina. I had the Canon and loved it. The range is awesome and the IQ was great. That said, I did find myself wanting f/2.8. If I hadn't had to sell the 10-22 to finance something else I would have eventually traded for the Tokina.

btw, the reason was more for DOF control than speed. With your 7D I think the 10-22 will be fine from a shutterspeed perspective. I was using an XSi, so f/4.5 ISO 1600 could be limiting.

Thanks to all who voted and replied so far,

I should have mention I shoot a lot of Concerts, and other low light situations. so f/4.5 is about the lowest I'll go on aperture. That's why the Tokina @ f/2.8 is SOO appealing for me. I do admit that Sigma 8-16 Caught my Eye; but f/4.5-5.6 is kind of a deal breaker for me...

Buy the tokina of you can find one. Worst case, is that you will be able to sell it easily for a minimal loss if you don't like it, and you can always find a Canon 10-22. I looked at both of them and bought the Tokina because of the 2.8, and also because the build quality seemed better to me. It is more solid feeling thatn the Canon. That being said, I like a heavier lens. One other benefit is the CONSTANT aperature which will keep your DOF from changing on you as you move throught he zoom range.

I would go for the Sigma 8-16 personally. if you were on a budget ($400) I would recommend the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6.

If I did not have such an excellent copy of the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 I would go for the Sig 8-16

I've been looking at the Tokina 11-16 as well & threads here regarding it. Owners of this lens seem to really be enjoying it. Based on your posts seems like you've made up your mind with the f2.8 Tokina.

I tried out both lenses at a local camera store. The Tokina took slightly sharper photos. The bigger selling point was that the Tokina had a great L type build... robust and sturdy. The Canon was built like a cheap toy. Plus the Tokina was faster (2.8). Plus the Tokina was cheaper. Easiest decision I ever made.

nightcat wrote in post #11886204
I tried out both lenses at a local camera store. The Tokina took slightly sharper photos. The bigger selling point was that the Tokina had a great L type build... robust and sturdy. The Canon was built like a cheap toy. Plus the Tokina was faster (2.8). Plus the Tokina was cheaper. Easiest decision I ever made.

I'm surprised that the Tokina came out sharper for you. Enjoy the lens though.

I vote 11-16. Three BIG reasons I decided to keep mines.

1. Full frame compatibility (13-16mm I think?)
2. Constant 2.8 aperture for video
3. Includes lens hood and looks better than Canon

Munky wrote in post #11884855
Thanks to all who voted and replied so far,

I should have mention I shoot a lot of Concerts, and other low light situations. so f/4.5 is about the lowest I'll go on aperture. That's why the Tokina @ f/2.8 is SOO appealing for me. I do admit that Sigma 8-16 Caught my Eye; but f/4.5-5.6 is kind of a deal breaker for me...

I don't see whats wrong with the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 then at 10mm (which is why you bought these wide angle lenses right? To be wide!) the lens is f4.

Now, if you don't care if AF, consider the Samyang 14mm f2.8, it is pretty cheap and VERY sharp.