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 06 Jul 2011 (Wednesday) 05:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 10-22mm or Tokina 11-16mm?

 
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Jul 07, 2011 11:02 |  #46

The 10-22 is phenomenal when it comes to flare handling.

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5544372854_b3d107156a_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/5​544372854/  (external link)
IMG_4400 (external link) by noobographer (external link), on Flickr

Its also no slouch in any other department either :)

IMAGE: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/5544379818_6af33161e0_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/5​544379818/  (external link)
IMG_4287 (external link) by noobographer (external link), on Flickr

-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mj_photo
Member
233 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Jul 07, 2011 12:07 |  #47

I like colors on the Canon more, i.e. color reproduction.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
39,491 posts
Gallery: 116 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7932
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Jul 07, 2011 12:33 |  #48

mj_photo wrote in post #12719471 (external link)
I like colors on the Canon more, i.e. color reproduction.

Have you had an opportunity to try both lenses out on the same body with the same style/settings to see the differences? I would love to try out something like that, but I don't have both lenses. It would be hard to compare otherwise because IMO the body, its settings, and the post processing would have more to do with the image after the fact than the lens in this regard.

I guess if I find a really good deal, I can pick up a 10-22 and do a mini-review to the 11-16... yippee, another comparison! :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
w00tabulous!
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
199 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Baarn, NL
     
Jul 07, 2011 13:17 |  #49

Thnx for those nice samples, Sirrith ;)

@ Mj-photo & Teamspeed; maybe if we ask Hollis_f (page 3 of this topic) nicely.. :)


flickr (external link) | w00tabulous! photography (external link) | facebook page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
Return of the Jedi
Avatar
9,911 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jun 2005
     
Jul 07, 2011 13:22 |  #50

w00tabulous! wrote in post #12713880 (external link)
So i guess the choice isn't easy after all ;)

Mainly i will use the lens outdoor during daylight shooting landscapes and so.

I've used both extensively and personally opted for the Tokina. However, in your case, you'd do really well with the Canon. It is a stellar optic. Pretty sharp, excellent color, and the flare is really exceptional (best of the UWA lot). It would be perfect for your needs.

Another option that is less costly is the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. It is very good and offers tremendous value.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Jul 07, 2011 16:05 |  #51

Here are some images from a few months back.

First the Tokina. Quite a bit of flare, with that big green orb over the pond being very difficult to remove in PP.

IMAGE: http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/UWA%20FlareTest-1.jpg

And the Canon, with the same shot, as close as I could get it. Like all the shots I've got where the sun is in, or near, the frame - virtually zero flare.

IMAGE: http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/UWA%20FlareTest-2.jpg

Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
w00tabulous!
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
199 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Baarn, NL
     
Jul 07, 2011 17:05 |  #52

That orb is well visible indeed. Also in the center of the image and on the roof of the house on the left. Thanks for sharing Frank!
And thanks for your comment aswel, LightRules. It would make more sense to buy the Canon i suppose ;)


flickr (external link) | w00tabulous! photography (external link) | facebook page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Jul 08, 2011 02:28 |  #53

w00tabulous! wrote in post #12721170 (external link)
That orb is well visible indeed. Also in the center of the image and on the roof of the house on the left. Thanks for sharing Frank!
And thanks for your comment aswel, LightRules. It would make more sense to buy the Canon i suppose ;)

You shouldn't discount the Sigma 8-16, either. You can go very wide with that optic (full frame equivalent of 13mm), and it's very sharp as well. Dunno about its flare resistance.

If I were choosing an UWA lens, the Sigma 8-16 would be my very first choice.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Jul 08, 2011 04:25 |  #54

kcbrown wrote in post #12723470 (external link)
If I were choosing an UWA lens, the Sigma 8-16 would be my very first choice.

For landscape work, it would be my last choice because of the inability to accept filters.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kcbrown
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,384 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Jul 09, 2011 19:55 |  #55

Sirrith wrote in post #12723678 (external link)
For landscape work, it would be my last choice because of the inability to accept filters.

That's a good point, but the same is true of the Sigma 12-24, so full frame isn't really in any better shape here as far as I know.

In any case, on crop, that's a real consideration, and it may be better to go with one of the lenses that start at 10mm or so in order to make use of filters possible.


"There are some things that money can't buy, but they aren't Ls and aren't worth having" -- Shooter-boy
Canon: 2 x 7D, Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, 55-250 IS, Sigma 8-16, 24-105L, Sigma 50/1.4, other assorted primes, and a 430EX.
Nikon: D750, D600, 24-85 VR, 50 f/1.8G, 85 f/1.8G, Tamron 24-70 VC, Tamron 70-300 VC.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KurtB2080
Junior Member
25 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Nj USA
     
Jul 09, 2011 20:45 |  #56

Never tried the Tokina, I have the 10-22 and LOVE it!

Good fun lens for some edgy people shots or nice for some architecture. :)


Bodies: Canon 40D|5D II
Glass: All Canon
10-22|24-105L|50 1.8|70-200L 2.8 IS II|75-300|85 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Jul 10, 2011 02:33 |  #57

kcbrown wrote in post #12731687 (external link)
That's a good point, but the same is true of the Sigma 12-24, so full frame isn't really in any better shape here as far as I know.

Thats why I'd probably pick the 17-40 or the 16-35 instead of the 12-24 :)


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LowriderS10
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,170 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Mar 2008
Location: South Korea / Canada
     
Jul 10, 2011 02:50 |  #58

I loved my Tokina 11-16...flared quite a bit, but otherwise excellent lens. When I was in the market for a UWA, I tested 3 or 4 pairs of Sigma 10-20 vs. Canon 10-22 and they were dead even for IQ. So I went with the Sigma and was happy, then when it was time to upgrade, the Tokina was the obvious choice and I never regretted it...only sold it because it was 13-16 on my 1D which is too narrow to really qualify it as a walkaround.


-=Prints For Sale at PIXELS=- (external link)
-=Facebook=- (external link)
-=Flickr=- (external link)

-=Gear=-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
g0bl0k
Senior Member
552 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Texas
     
Jul 10, 2011 08:23 as a reply to  @ LowriderS10's post |  #59

I'm really confused as well. I had canon 10-22 before but I dropped it from about 8ft. high. It just scattered into pieces. Now I'm in the market again for UWA and really considering tokina 11-16. The canon had served me well and I had no complaint at all, but the price of this lens is just ridiculously expensive. I purchased one few years ago for around $600 brand new. I know the tokina is really popular, but the flare and CA really concern me. Distortion is another thing. I never consider sigma 10-20 because from what I read, its distortion is the worst between the three. Or maybe I should really take a look at sigma 10-20. This is so hard.....:confused:


My Junk

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ottacat
Member
171 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
     
Jul 10, 2011 08:35 |  #60

g0bl0k wrote in post #12733310 (external link)
I'm really confused as well. I had canon 10-22 before but I dropped it from about 8ft. high. It just scattered into pieces. Now I'm in the market again for UWA and really considering tokina 11-16. The canon had served me well and I had no complaint at all, but the price of this lens is just ridiculously expensive. I purchased one few years ago for around $600 brand new. I know the tokina is really popular, but the flare and CA really concern me. Distortion is another thing. I never consider sigma 10-20 because from what I read, its distortion is the worst between the three. Or maybe I should really take a look at sigma 10-20. This is so hard.....:confused:

The Tokina is aimed for a different style of shooting that the Canon and Sigma lenses. It is aimed for the handheld indoor / low light photographer while the Canon and Sigma's are meant for the outdoor landscape / architectural photographers who often use tripods or have lots of light. I use my Canon extensively and as when I look at the EXIF data after photo shoots I find I often use the whole 10-22 range and would be doing a lot more lens switching with my 17-55 if I had the Tokina. I have also never used by my Canon wide open, I am almost always shooting at F8 to F11 to get that lovely DOF that UWA's provide.

Between the Canon and the Sigma - I have the Canon because it was my first UWA and I had the extra money. I have friends and Flickr contacts that use the Sigma and it is a great lens. Creativity, choice of location, time of day, composition all contribute more heavily into what make a great photo that whether the Canon or Sigma is used.

I use filters extensively and any UWA that couldn't accept filters would be a non-starter.


7D, EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55, EF 70-200L IS II, EF 100 macro, 1.4 TC III, 430 EX II
Flickr (external link)

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

9,421 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 10-22mm or Tokina 11-16mm?
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 Lettuceboy95
893 guests, 249 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.