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

The flare scares me on the tokina... Ugh!

I use the 22mm end of the Canon 10-22

I have been able to use the 10-22 as more of a walk-around lens, where I can usually make 22mm work for a lot of photos where I might ideally want a little more reach (and I do use the 10mm FL, and others in between). It seems to me that the 11-16mm would be more of a specialist lens...if you are NOT interested in ultra-wide, then you *have* to swap lenses and go with something else for general use.

Not that swapping lenses is difficult, but minimizing the number of swaps is sometimes desired. If I am with a group of people and don't want to slow down the group for a lens change + photo, or I want to spend more time taking pictures or just enjoying the scenery vs. concentrating on juggling camera and lenses.

Based on my use of the 10-22, the Tamron 10-24mm and Tokina 12-24mm might also be worth a look. I really liked the build of the Tokina, FWIW.

I voted "other": Tokina 12-24/4, $500. I've had it several years and have no plans to change. (Compare to Toki 11-16/2.8, $600; Canon 10-22 w/hood, $850).

Great value, top image quality, "L-like" build, constant aperture, f4 is plenty fast on an UWA, nice zoom range. No more issues with flare than any other UWA lens... Use the lens hood and don't put a silly "protection" filter on it to help keep flare under control. The hood is included in the price with the Toki... But of course on an UWA a hood can only do so much.

I haven't compared the newer Tamron 10-24 or the newest Sigma 8-16mm, but I ranked the Toki 12-24, 11-16 and Canon 10-22 all as pretty equal in image quality aside from the differences in focal lengths. I felt the Siggy 10-20 ($480) and especially the Tamron 11-18 (now discontinued) were lacking a bit in IQ. A lot of folks like it, but the Siggy 10-20 is about the oldest lens design in the category now, and when I was shopping I was put off by the variable aperture that drops all the way to f5.6 at the 20mm end.

A constant aperture was important to me, since I sometimes use manual studio strobes and try to avoid variable aperture lenses. Granted, I don't use this particular lens a lot in studio situations. Still, since it wasn't any more costly, what the heck.

Someone mentioned using on FF... The 11-16 can only be used as a 16mm prime, not any wider. The 12-24 can be used as wide as approx. 18 or 19mm. The Canon EF-S lens can't be fitted at all, of course. Haven't tried the other lenses mentioned.

https://photography-on-the.net …905&highlight=1​0-22+11-16

Hi This poll ran a few weeks ago helped me to decide on 10-22 which I am really happy with.

I owned the Sigma 8-16mm for a little while and quickly realized that it was not the lens for me. The distortion seemed pretty bad at 8mm and I found myself zooming in a bit to fix this. Probably could have been fixed in post processing very easily though. Also, the max aperture was very limiting. I would not want this lens if I was shooting at concerts and in low light as the OP suggested.

I am not sure how the Tokina and the Canon compare because I have not owned them. I have played with them in the store and did not notice much of a difference in build quality, maybe I need to take a closer look.

As I said in an earlier post, I voted for the Tokina. I might give that one a try again some day.

If you decide to go with the Tokina and have trouble finding it, Roberts Camera (In Indianapolis) usually has it in stock. I have bought a few lenses from them with no problems.

http://robertscamera.c​om/