Canon 10-22 vs Tokina 10-17 (or UWA vs FE)

I started typing this up last night, got distracted, noticed there is a related thread today, but decided a separate thread was still worthwhile:

I have noted that a "Fisheye" lens will have a wider FOV than an UWA lens of the same focal length - yeah, not exactly news to most, just the opening point of my discussion/query. As I understand it this stems from the rectilinear view from the UWA vs the very distorted circular polar/radial view of the FE - the UWA "consumes" FOV to maintain perspective.

I have a Rokinon 8mm FE. It is "fun" and can take some interesting shots, including shots where the fisheye distortion is not really noticeable due to the subject matter (beach shots with horizon across the middle of the view, for example). There are times when I would like to "zoom" the 8mm and get to about 15mm or even higher, so I usually just swap out for my 15-85. So I have been reviewing the specs and sample photos of the common FE/UWA lenses, including the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 10-17 mentioned in the thread title, trying to figure out whether either of those archetypes will scratch my itch for zooming from FE/UWA to plain-old WA.

For those folks that have used both UWAs and FEs at comparable focal length ranges: do you feel the FE look gets tired pretty quickly, and that having a single prime FE (like my affordable Rokinon 8mm) is enough to satisfy the FE needs and that the rectilinear UWAs are more useful/pleasing to capture those, well, ultra-wide shots?

The Tokina is the only affordable zoom that provides true 180 deg FOV (or close to it) on a crop like my T3i. The new Canon 8-15mm FE is undoubtedly a fine lens, but not sure it would be worth the money for the novelty of it all, and AFAIK from 8-10mm simply provides dark corners on crop bodies without going whole hog to a fully-circular image.

The Canon 10-22 seems to be well-regarded in the UWA arena, with healthy competition from the Tokina 11-16 (constant 2.8) and Sigma 10-20s (either constant 3.5 or very affordable price on the variable aperture).

Your thoughts on which type of lens (FE vs UWA) has proved more useful (and used more) in your own experiences are appreciated.

shinksma

Personally, I consider the fisheye to be a highly specialized lens, and one that I would never use enough to justify having it consume space in my camera bag, let alone buying one.

While some consider the UWA to also be a specialty lens, I consider it to be an indispensable tool for landscape photography, providing very dramatic images. I would prefer to have a 15mm and 12mm rectilinear prime to the zooms; I'd rather the lens designer spend his time optimizing for one focal length than wasting his time making the compromises to have a UWA to WA zoom, but that's just me.

I don't need UWAs to be fast, since I would be use them so rarely inside that it wouldn't matter. Low-light landscapes are easy enough with a tripod.

I'd suggest the Canon 10-22 3.5-3.5 from the Canon refurb site to save a few bucks.

The 10-22 I had was incredible on my 7D... I really miss it, and prefer it greatly over the 17-40 on FF. The 10-22 was superior to the Tokina 12-24 and 11-16 I have used prior. Sharp, excellent colors, very "L" like.

So no-one else has any comments on UWA rectilinear vs Fisheye curvilinear?

I have been encouraged to get one before a probable trip to Scandinavia next year, so although I'm not in a hurry, I wouldn't mind having one for a while to play with prior to the trip.

So please, more comments?

shinksma

I found limited use from the Tokina 11-17 FE, but get a lot more mileage out of a UWA 12-24mm same brand. But leaning to get the 11-16mm for the 2.8. But I'm under tall tree canopy and think that will help. When I do look at the few FE shots I've got, thoughts do stir around about getting another eventually. But it's last on the priority list.

Here's two I just reduced to post in a rating thread.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Would you say the 10-22 is good in low light? I'm in the same predicament and looking for a UWA lens.. I'm currently on a crop now to learn but will be upgrading to a bigger better body at some point down the line.

Collecting some nice lens and upgrade body later.

Giccin wrote in post #13142690
Would you say the 10-22 is good in low light? I'm in the same predicament and looking for a UWA lens.. I'm currently on a crop now to learn but will be upgrading to a bigger better body at some point down the line.

Collecting some nice lens and upgrade body later.

Here's one thread I found that might have something related to your question ...

https://photography-on-the.net …ina+11-16+vs.+Canon+10-22

The Canon 10-22 & Tokina 11-16

Hate to revisit this topic, but hey, it's my thread...

I'm currently toggling between getting the Sigma 8-16 and the Canon 10-22. The Sigma is ~$700 new, while I can get a Canon used for ~$650. I have no qualms about used equipment - I have several second-hand lenses already.

Is the extra 2mm on the wide end going to make up for changing lenses a bit more often if I find 16mm isn't tight enough? Is the difference between 16mm and 22mm easily compensated by cropping the image? Will the Canon lens hold its value better? Will the Sigma run into future camera model compatibility issues? Will the slightly faster aperture of the Canon make a difference?

Yeah, mostly personal-preference questions that only I can answer. I keep leaning towards the Sigma 8-16, but then I wonder if the Canon would work just a bit better as a city-scape walk-around lens.

Gah.

Comments and snide remarks welcome.

shinksma