Cheapest wide angle lenses?

I'm just wondering, I plan on buying a super wide angle lens in the not so near future.

I'm pretty sure I'm gonna have to save up for the likes of a Canon 10-22mm

But I was just wondering if anyone had any pearls of wisdom, and secret lenses out there for slightly cheaper than the 10-22 but as wide as it?

How about the Sigma 10-20?

It's not quite as wide, but you can easily find a Tokina 12-24 for under $350 used. It's a very nice lens, well-built, very sharp, constant f4.

maybe tamron 10-24 but is not stellar

i like also tokina 12-24 and sigam 10-20

The Tokina 11-16 mm 2.8 and the 12-24mm f4 lenses are outstanding. The Tokina's are built FAR better than the Canon and are much cheaper. I compared the Canon 10-22mm to the Tokina 11-16mm before making a purchase. The Tokina won in every catagory. Even the Tokina's IQ edged out the Canon. It was the easiest lens decision I ever made.

The Sigma 10-20 is a great lens and cheaper than the Canon. I had one for years and loved it. Only sold it to make my lenses full frame friendly. Here's a gallery of some shots I took with it: http://www.flickr.com …y/sets/72157626​282089084/

nightcat wrote in post #12205936
The Tokina 11-16 mm 2.8 and the 12-24mm f4 lenses are outstanding. The Tokina's are built FAR better than the Canon and are much cheaper. I compared the Canon 10-22mm to the Tokina 11-16mm before making a purchase. The Tokina won in every catagory. Even the Tokina's IQ edged out the Canon. It was the easiest lens decision I ever made.

Even flare? All of the wide-angle options on Canon are really good, decide what you need, what you can live with. If cost is your number one issue, the sigma 10-20 is a great lens.

jminchoi wrote in post #12206171
Even flare?

And AF speed?
And in range?
And they have FTM?
And in CA?



If you want cheap, get the sigma 10-20, its a great lens for the price.

The tokina vs canon is more about what you need the lens for rather than IQ, since IQ wise they are close. The canon is better if you shoot in harsh lighting conditions, and if you need a wider range, the tokina is better if you shoot indoors, no question, due to the 2.8 aperture.

sigma 10-20 hands down.

beats everything but canon in IQ, then again canon is twice the price.

canon has 1 year warranty and sigma has 3. that means the world to me now after one of my canon lens broke after 1 year and i meticulously take care of my stuff.

nightcat wrote in post #12205936
The Tokina 11-16 mm 2.8 and the 12-24mm f4 lenses are outstanding. The Tokina's are built FAR better than the Canon and are much cheaper. I compared the Canon 10-22mm to the Tokina 11-16mm before making a purchase. The Tokina won in every catagory. Even the Tokina's IQ edged out the Canon. It was the easiest lens decision I ever made.

+ 1 and have both

Have you considered primes, or are you specifically looking for a zoom? I just recently got a Rokinon 8mm and after using it, I'm now considering getting the 14mm as well.

i was 99.9% about to pull the trigger on a sigma 10-20. i had also compared it to the canon and decided it wasn't worth the price. however, i ended up getting the tokina 11-16...i have never considered that lens because i always thought the range sucked and who needed a 2.8 on a UWA and it was more than sigma and always sold out. well, i saw one in stock at a relatively good price and jumped on it. just got it today and can't say i'm disappointed! but i want to take some shots outdoors...too bad it's raining now

Cool, let me know how it goes nike.

congrats, i guess it all depends if you needed the 2.8 or not.

Roy Webber wrote in post #12206253
+ 1 and have both

-1 and I also have both.

The Tokina's flare handling is poor when compared to most lenses. When compared to the Canon 10-22 it's really bad. When shooting outside with an UWA it's not unusual to find the sun in, or just ouside, your desired frame. With the 10-22 you just shoot, knowing that flare, if there is any, will be minimal. With the 11-16 you know you're going to have to change your framing (if possible) or pretend that the flare was deliberate and 'artistic'.

The CA, AF speed, FTM and range I could forgive when shooting outside. But the poor flare handling really is a major pain.