Tamron or Tokina? First new lens help

I am looking to get a better lens that the kit lens for my T2i. I am finding the sharpness is not there like I expected. My local Sammy's let me try the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 the Sigma 10-20 F/3.5 and the Tamron 10-24 F/3.5-4.5. I took the same picture with all three lenses along with my kit 18-55 at F/4.5 since that was as low as I could get it inside the shop with a fast enough shutter speed since those other lenses dont have IS. I have not studied the pics that close yet but my first impression was that they did not look much different other than the wide angle view from the other lenses. I know most lenses perform the best around F/8-11.

My questions there is a wide price range here between these lenses and I want them for scenic photos and possibly night time or low light so I know the tokina would be best but it is over 700 bucks. There is the other Tokina 12-24 F/4 but I didnt try that one. It is cheaper. I am kind of ruling out Sigma because of so many bad reviews I have seen.

I really want to know in terms of IQ what will be the best bet for me? I did not get a chance to take a bunch of photos in order to get a great idea of how each lens performs in different situations. So I am looking to those that have more experience. I already feel I went with the wrong camera body and should of spent more for a higher end refurbished 5D but this is what I have now since resale of the T2i is not very good.

The T2i is a good camera and will produce images that are similar to that of the 60D and 7D. It costs a lot less than the 7D.
I have the T2i and Tokina 12-24F4. The Tokina is a good lens, and much lower in cost than the Canon 10-22. I wanted this focal length range and like the Tokina. You can get similar performance from the Sigma10-20 (cheaper model), if you are OK with that range.
The kit lens, the 18-55IS is a pretty good lens. If you want a sharper lens, you can get it from a prime - like the 35f2, 50f1.4 or 85f1.8 (Canons).

Out of those lenses my favorite and what I ended up purchasing was the Sigma 10-20mm. I love the lens.

GregoryF wrote in post #13400082
Out of those lenses my favorite and what I ended up purchasing was the Sigma 10-20mm. I love the lens.

Ditto.

Thanks all for your info. It is a hard decision. I just got home and looked at the photos I took with all the lenses and to be honest my Kit lens seems to look the best. The pics I took inside the store the kit lens showed the colors more vibrant and deeper for some reason. The others looked washed out and flat. I am viewing all the RAW images in dpp. Now it could be because they are taken at a wider focal length so the light totally changed, and also that my hand was not steady enough to deal with them not having IS like the kit lens. I did go outside and take some shots at 800 shutter speed to make sure and the same thing happened. The Tokina 720 buck lens looked flat and dull compared to the kit lens. Again I took all of these at F4.5 to see how they fair wider open which may not be where these perform the best. ALso could be the lack of IS built in them.

Am I crazy or is it possible the kit lens is really taking a better photo? I can try to upload them to my flickr account if you want to see them.

Here are the pics I took inside the shop. You may want to click on them to go to my flicker page to view them in a larger format. Taken at F4.5 1/8 shutter ISO 100


Kit lens 18-55

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Of those 3, I'd pick the sigma for a good balance of IQ, range, aperture, price, and AF. If your main objective is to shoot indoors, then I'd go for the tokina. I would not choose the tamron.

The Tokina and Sigma are excellent choices. I would choose one of these and avoid the very overpriced Canon 10-22mm.

Of the outdoor shots, I agree that the kit lens produced the best shot of the 2.

Of the indoor shots, because of the off WB and red being the prominent color, it's hard to pick a winner.

bohdank wrote in post #13402024
Of the outdoor shots, I agree that the kit lens produced the best shot of the 2.

Of the indoor shots, because of the off WB and red being the prominent color, it's hard to pick a winner.

Ya it is weird that the kit lens did so much better than 700 dollar lens.

Sirrith wrote in post #13401537
Of those 3, I'd pick the sigma for a good balance of IQ, range, aperture, price, and AF. If your main objective is to shoot indoors, then I'd go for the tokina. I would not choose the tamron.

Main objective is outside scenery landscape shots including HDR photos and nightime photos. I have the Nifty Fifty and thought it would be great for night shots but at 1.8 and 100 ISO I still get very noisy soft looking photos even on a tripod with a 2sec timer and remote. Not sure how that is possible. Daytime it takes fine shots at F/8-11.

So I am pretty confused at this point as to which lens to get since in all the indoor shots you can see the left side with all though papers in those racks the kit lens shows them much clearer even at that low F-stop.

SHould I spring the extra money for a wide angle with IS? I am thinking these lense would do much better on a tripod or at faster shutters and higher F-stop?

HDR Fan wrote in post #13402731
Main objective is outside scenery landscape shots including HDR photos and nightime photos. I have the Nifty Fifty and thought it would be great for night shots but at 1.8 and 100 ISO I still get very noisy soft looking photos even on a tripod with a 2sec timer and remote. Not sure how that is possible. Daytime it takes fine shots at F/8-11.

SHould I spring the extra money for a wide angle with IS? I am thinking these lense would do much better on a tripod or at faster shutters and higher F-stop?

If mainly outdoors, don't get any of those. Just go for the old sigma 10-20 4-5.6, its cheaper, and at landscape apertures, you won't notice much of a difference in terms of IQ.

There is no wide angle lens with IS that goes into UWA territory.

If you are actually going to do HDR you will need a tripod. Perhaps you should test these lenses on a tripod? That will eliminate the camera shake which is clearly present in all of the photos taken with the non-kit lenses. Also, that way you can be sure of getting the exact same shot. The two ourdoor shots are slightly different with the Tokina lens being pointed closer to the Sun (see the extra bit of brightness in the upper-right corner).

melauer wrote in post #13402808
If you are actually going to do HDR you will need a tripod. Perhaps you should test these lenses on a tripod? That will eliminate the camera shake which is clearly present in all of the photos taken with the non-kit lenses. Also, that way you can be sure of getting the exact same shot. The two ourdoor shots are slightly different with the Tokina lens being pointed closer to the Sun (see the extra bit of brightness in the upper-right corner).

I do have a tripod, but I think the extra sun in the shot is because of the lens being wider and getting more of the scene and more of the sun. I was standing in the same spot for both photos.

Since that is the case I may just have to stick with the kit lens since a lot of the time a tripod is not going to be used when out and about, and I need a steady shot. Or I will have to look for a better lens that has IS and deal with it not being wide angle but has better IQ. Also I see you have a couple of Sigmas so you clearly must like them. How are you using them? Mostly on a tripod or at really fast shutter to combat shake? I would be pretty unhappy to spend 500-700 on a lens taht I could never get a sharp pic with because it has to be rock steady at any shutter speed which means only tripod use. If I bought a non IS lens I would somehow have to resign it to 100% tripod duty. I am almost tempted to get the Canon 17-55mm with IS or the 15-85 with IS USM.

Sirrith wrote in post #13402758
If mainly outdoors, don't get any of those. Just go for the old sigma 10-20 4-5.6, its cheaper, and at landscape apertures, you won't notice much of a difference in terms of IQ.

There is no wide angle lens with IS that goes into UWA territory.

HDR Fan wrote in post #13403024
I do have a tripod, but I think the extra sun in the shot is because of the lens being wider and getting more of the scene and more of the sun. I was standing in the same spot for both photos.

Well, there is a stone pillar/doorway on the left edge of the kit lens shot. One would think that the wider lens would show more of things near the edges of the frame. Instead the pillar isn't present at all in the Tokina shot. So surely you aimed the camera a bit differently in the two shots.

Either way, lens flares wipe out contrast. Even getting a bit of direct light in the shot can have an effect. Did you have a lens hood on either lens? Either way, this will always be an issue for a really wide lens like the Tokina, so it is something to consider.