Canon 10-22, Sigma 8-16mm or Tokina 11-16

Hi all,

I'm finding that I'm not getting images wide enough when shooting indoors (for Christmas etc) or for landscapes without going all fish eye.

The shortest lens I have is the Sigma 17-70 which is great most of the time, but occasionally its just too close, especially when I don't have the space to move.

I had initially considered the Sigma 10-20 too but looking at the images from archive just don't look that great on the whole.

I know I'm using a crop which doesn't help but I don;t think I can afford to splash out on a new body.

What do you guys think?

Cheers

The Canon 10-22 - check out the lens sample archive an that one.

For me it was the tokina, and I havn't looked back There's one up for sale in the sell section now.

Call around to your local dealers, see who carries the one's your interested in, fire a few shoots of each, you'll know what you want

Go here you will see photo's taken of each of those lenses

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/

Thanks for pointing me to the sales - sadly its in the US and I got stung pretty heavily before when I imported so I'm steering clear

It is hard choosing between the three and I don't have a local seller anywhere near me to try them out - which is a pain to say the least.

I've been looking at the archive all morning and just when I think I'm set for one of them an image pops up from one of the other threads and looks brilliant!

If you're shooting outdoors or where there are bright lights, the canon will be better, as it handles flare the best out of all the UWAs .

I've chosen the Tokina and never looked back.
f/2.8 and super sharp images set the deal.
All are good options... can't really go wrong with any... but as I already had the range from 17 all up to 500mm covered, the difference in FL didn't make much difference... but the f/2.8 did

I rented the Canon 10-22mm last year and was impressed with the lens. I also rented the Tamron 10-24mm and found that it was close to the level of the Canon (perhaps 98% of the Canon, in terms of picture quality).

My purchase decision came down to price and I happened to land in a lucky spot where Tamron was offering a $100 rebate (which I got in <3 weeks after purchase), so I ended up buying the Tamron for a net price of $400 vice the $799 that the Canon goes for.

I've been very happy with the quality and performance of the lens. I used it a fair amount when I was in Australia from mid-February through the end of March!

me too - 17-500 covered!

How much better do you find the 2.8, also Sirrith mentioned flare, how bad is it?

Arg, now I'll have to go looking up the Tammy

General consensus is that the tamron is not really worth considering, as the sigma f4 version is cheaper and better.

Have a look at this comparison:
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …s_canon_tamron_​tokina.htm

I can't provide an example of the tokina's flare, as I don't have the tokina, but there are PLENTY of examples online if you search

I can however provide several examples of the canon's flare resistance, you can see the location of the sun in each of these photos, just outside the frame, barely in the frame, and in the frame. In all cases, no flare worth complaining about. Also, the tokina doesn't go to 10mm, nor from 17-22, and I use my lens quite frequently at both ends, and I've almost never used it wider than 5.6, so I'm quite confident in saying the tokina would not suit my needs.
However, this might not be true for you personally.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/5​543795225/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/5​544373586/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/5​543973704/

I compared the Tokina to the Canon at a local camera store. The Tokina had slightly better IQ in the photos I took, plus it had a far better build and 2.8 to boot, AND it was less expensive. Needless to say it was an easy decision.

lol, sounds it

Unfortunately they're pretty much all the same price over here!

£549 - Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 AT-X PRO DX
£549 - Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6 DC HSM Lens
£595 - Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM Lens

The Tamron is cheaper but having checked he archive I'm not so taken, but money wise its the best of the bunch:
£354.99 - Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 Di II LD Lens

The other "cheapie" is the:

£376 - Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens
£460 - Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM Lens

Sirrith - thanks for the link - just reading it now

No problem, but like I said regarding the tamron, the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 is same price or cheaper, and its a better lens

Sirrith I love that last shot

Owned both Tokina and Sigma. Tokina didn't do much for me comparing to 17-40L and went back to the store. Plus it had excessive CA and poor flare resistance. 8-16 with otherwise close sharpness in the center has better corners and extra 3 mm on wide end, which is huge.
Was quite depressed by Canon build when was checking it in the store and discarded it right away. Don't have first hand experience with its image quality but online reports, like this one, indicate that both Toki and Sigma are sharper, esp in corners.