Wideangle on 7d

I was thinking about getting the Canon 10-22 for my 7D, but I may reconsider now. However, I am afraid of getting a bad or soft copy since these are 3rd party lens makers. :/

I liked the 10-22 when I had it.
Went FF and now have the 16-35 II.

Kaleidoscope wrote in post #12904088
Interesting suggestions.. would most of you guys also take the Tokina 11-16 over the Canon 10-22?

Roy Webber wrote in post #12904138
Having both lenses, then certainly yes

Having Sigma 8-16 and Tokina 11-16, I would say no to Tokina.

KenjiS wrote in post #12900865
Theres basically 3 choices IMHO

Need something cheap? Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Great lens, very sharp, pretty flare resistant and able to be found in the $300 neighborhood

Need something fast? Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Great lens overall, great build, a bit hard to find in stock though last time i checked

Dont need speed? Then the Sigma 8-16, The point of a UWA is to get wide, and there is not a single lens out there thats wider, And its sharp, And its flare resistant...

+1 This is also more or less how I see it.

I may ultimately end up with the Tokina 11-16 just because it is a stop faster and it's cheaper.

For you guys who have bought a 3rd party lens and found that it was very soft, do you ship it back to the retailer or the manufacturer?

The retailer, I imagine, they're the ones who should figure out what to do next.

Kaleidoscope wrote in post #12904088
Interesting suggestions.. would most of you guys also take the Tokina 11-16 over the Canon 10-22?

As somebody who owns both - it's the Tokina that I'd give up if one had to go.

hollis_f wrote in post #12905647
As somebody who owns both - it's the Tokina that I'd give up if one had to go.

Any particular reason why?

Kaleidoscope wrote in post #12905684
Any particular reason why?

Because I only use the Tokina for astro shots. For general use outside in the sunshine the
Canon has much better flare handling and a much longer focal range. The Tokina has no real advantage in those conditions.

Speaking of flare handling.... I took this shot last night just to show the flare handling...this is wide open at 8mm with the Sigma 8-16 on my 7d

You can see the sun at the edge of the frame.. my old Tokina, the shot would be pretty much unusable due to the amount of flare in the shot..

va_rider, that's a beautiful image..

gtg844f wrote in post #12909438
va_rider, that's a beautiful image..

Thanks.. but that was just to show flare... the 8-16 can do much better...

I posted some shots over in the 8-16 sample thread : https://photography-on-the.net …?p=12906664&pos​tcount=258

Just remember, the 11-16 works almost like a prime. 5mm is all you get from the widest to the tightest.

Barring that, if you do plan on staying on crop...I loved my 11-16. Or just use it at 16mm on a FF.

va_rider wrote in post #12909407
Speaking of flare handling.... I took this shot last night just to show the flare handling...this is wide open at 8mm with the Sigma 8-16 on my 7d

You can see the sun at the edge of the frame.. my old Tokina, the shot would be pretty much unusable due to the amount of flare in the shot..

Urgh. That's pretty horrible. Just boosts my opinion that the Canon really is the only lens to consider if this sort of shooting is at all important.

OP, you need to decide what you mean by "best":

Best image quality and flare resistance: Canon 10-22. It's just pretty expensive... $850 US by the time you get the lens hood that's sold separately. Good USM/mid-grade build, but not as good as some others.

Best image quality with good, just not quite as good as the Canon flare resistance: Tokina 11-16/2.8 and 12-24/4. Some other lenses might be pretty good in this respect, too... I certainly haven't tried them all.

Widest possible: the new Sigma 8-16mm. Would be a nice match for someone who has a standard zoom that goes to 17 or 18mm, but perhaps not so great for someone who has a 24 to something or 28 to something instead. Relatively pricey at $700 US.

Best price: Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 is $480. Not as flare resistant as some others. Image quality overall might not be as good as some others, if the example I tried is representative. It was better than the now discontinued Tamron 11-18, though, which was also relatively prone to veiling flare, loss of color saturation and contrast.

Broadest range of focal lengths: Tamron 10-24mm offers the widest range of any of the UWAs offered. Haven't tried it personally... Tamron's AF performance has been a bit iffy on some other lenses that I'm aware of - slower and noisier. Though this lens may be fine because an UWA doesn't need to move the focusing elements much to do it's job. The wider range of focal lengths might mean more compromise on image quality... But, again, I dunno, simply haven't shot with it personally. These are just things I'd look at if I were considering this lens.

Fixed aperture: Want a non-variable aperture? There are three possibilities. Sigma 10-20/3.5, Tokina 11-16/2.8, Tokina 12-24/4. Note that 10-20 and 11-16 are the narrowest range of focal lengths among these UWA.

Best apparent build quality: Tokina 11-16 or 12-24. Sigma are close, though and Tamron isn't at all bad. The Canon is the most "plasticky" feeling. But this is only observing the apparent build, materials of the lenses, and feeling their heft and smoothness of function. It really doesn't say anything about sealing and resistance to dust/moisture, durability, etc. The Canon might be the best of the bunch.... Only years of use and experience with the lenses will tell us for certain which are truly the most durable in use.

Fastest aperture?: Tokina 11-16/2.8 is the only f2.8 lens in the bunch. The Sigma 10-20/3.5 is second best in this respect. The trade off is that these have narrow range of focal lengths and are relatively pricey ($660 and $650). Have to ask yourself if you really need f2.8 on an UWA. I know I don't, I'm generally stopping a wide lens down for more depth of field... Plus I have no trouble hand-holding these lenses at 1/30 and little concern about using my cameras at ISO 1600 or 3200.

Filters? If you like to use filters, some lenses have protruding front elements that won't allow that at all (Sigma 8-16mm). Among those that can be fitted with filters, there's some variations of filter size... many use 77mm, a few use larger (Sigma 10-20/3.5 uses 82mm). Note that it can be tricky to use a polarizing filter on an UWA lens. Not a fault of the lens or the filter, for example it's just that so much of the sky might be covered by the lens' angle of view that it can look uneven and blotchy.

Full frame capable? The most UWA zoom that's fully usable on both crop cameras and full frame cameras is the Sigma 12-24. This lens seems to compromise a bit on image quality, and is fairly expensive, but it goes wider on FF than any other prime or zoom available, short of a fisheye. Note, there is a new Mark II version coming out soon, more expense... have no idea of improvements. Canon's UWA and other lenses for crop are EF-S lenses that cannot even be fitted to FF at all (without modification). Most third party lenses can be mounted, but might vignette or physically interfere with, possibly even damage the larger mirror in a FF camera. I can tell you from my own tests with it that the Tokina 12-24 will work on 5DII zoomed to about 18 or 19mm wide before it starts to vignette. I haven't tried, but understand the Tokina 11-16mm can be used as a 16mm "prime" on FF, but vignettes if zoomed any wider. Haven't tried and can't say about any of the other lenses listed here. Using a crop lens on FF might be nice in a pinch, but likely will show more distortion effects than a lens actually designed and built for FF use.

Best price? You'll have to decide what that means.

Sigma 10-20/4-5.6.......$490
Tamron 10-24.............$500
Tokina 12-24..............$550
Sigma 10-20/3.5..........$650
Tokina 11-16/2.8.........$660
Sigma 8-16...............$700
Sigma 12-24 (FF).........$830
Canon 10-22 (w/hood)...$850
Sigma 12-24 II (FF)......$950 (new version, not yet avail.)

Best AF performance? I list this last because it actually might be a non-issue with UWA lenses. Most designs don't need to move their focusing elements very far to focus and these lenses tend to have a lot of depth of field that would hide minor focus error. Theoretically, Canon USM or Sigma HSM (or any other manufacturer using similar, though I'm not aware of any at the moment) would be the "best". I worried about this until I tried the lenses for myself. My 12-24 Tokina focuses quickly and accurately, without USM or HSM. Some slower lenses (f5.6) might be a little slower or more difficult to get to focus in challenging light, but I'm not aware of any problems... Look for user comments on any particular lenses you might consider. But really this is more of a concern with other focal lengths, in particular bigger aperture telephotos with shallow DOF.

To expand upon what Frank comments about above, regarding flare... The two Tokina are both actually pretty flare resistant. In fact I'd say they're both nicely "better than average" in this respect. It's just that the Canon is way, way above average, might be more flare resistant than any other lens in the category. If flare is your only concern, then the Canon is probably the lens to get. While flare can be a factor when working with UWA, it's not the only factor IMO. For example, is the additional flare resistance of the Canon worth $200 or $300 more than the Tokina? Or is the fixed aperture of the Tokina also important to you? Or the f2.8 of the 11-16 Tokina? Or other factors? Some types of flare, if not too major, can be fixed in post-production. Or, you might even want flare in your images, for special effect (there are softwares sold to add it to an image now!) or because we are pretty accustomed to seeing it and sort of expect it.

The above are all truly wide capable lenses on a 1.6X crop Canon. If you don't need so wide, there are a whole lot more possibilities: Canon 15-85, 14/2.8L (way pricey), 16-35/2.8L (pretty pricey), 17/4 TS-E (way pricey), 17-55 (not cheap), 17-40L and a good deal more that start around 18mm, plus a number of third party lenses. Most options for truly wide on 7D are zooms, there are few primes. I use the Canon 20/2.8 on both 7D and 5DII. It's a very wide lens on FF, but only moderately wide on the cropper (equiv to 32mm on FF).

You'll have to weigh the different factors for yourself, perhaps including some others I've glossed over or omitted here. Look in the lens sample archives for any particular lens, to see what it's capable of. If at all possible, get hold of different lenses to compare them for yourself. Personally I compared Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 11-18, Tokina 12-24 when I chose the last lens. I've since done a little testing with the Tokina 11-16/2.8 considering upgrading to it, but decided to stick with the 12-24 because it's focal lengths fit into my lens kit better and I don't really need f2.8 on an UWA. You probably have different priorities and might choose a different lens.