My profit will be a wide-angle zoom

Hello
The other day I got a call that one of my photos had won this year's nature photo competition. The price was a substantial amount of money at any camera dealer. Previously, I never wanted to put out a lot of money on a wide angle lens but with the price so it opened up the door for a purchase. The two that I have focused on is:

Sigma EX 12-24/4,5-5, 6 DG HSM II
Tokina AT-X Pro 16-28/2.8 FX

I want the best objective as possible, of course. Crisp, little distortion and vignetting even though there are always these types of lenses.
My camera is 6D (Full-frame)

Pros-Cons please!

Heya,

Ultrawides to me require two important things: 1) flare resistance, 2) corner/edge performance. After that, I care that it takes filters. The rest is not important really to me (maximum aperture, IS or not, manual focus or autofocus, etc).

What do you want in an ultrawide?

Very best,

All depends on what you plan to shoot, if you;re just getting a wide angle to add it to the kit (like I did) then I'd go with the Sigma, I know f/4 and above is extremely unattractive on paper but it does an amazing job at capturing scenery.

If you plan to do video or shoots out night then obviously the Tokina is the way to go

Maybe look into the new 10-18mm APS-C lens from Canon too. I've read some good reviews on POTN and otherwise so maybe add that to your list of options?

bjonesy77 wrote in post #17019176
Maybe look into the new 10-18mm APS-C lens from Canon too. I've read some good reviews on POTN and otherwise so maybe add that to your list of options?

The OP has a 6D.

I personally need a bit of zoom capabilities for my wide angle shots on the 5D3, so I am using the Tokina 15-22 f4 lens. Just enough zoom, and it converts to an 11-16 f2.8 lens for my APS-C bodies.

Otherwise, if I wanted to spend 2-4 times as much, I would get the 16-35 f2.8 or 16-35 f4 IS. The edges at the wide end would much sharper than what I get at 15mm.

Here is 15 vs 22mm at f4 wide open.

IMAGE LINK: http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …M5kX/0/X3/5P1B0​519-X3.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …WDxR/0/X3/5P1B0​520-X3.jpg

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17019348
I personally need a bit of zoom capabilities for my wide angle shots on the 5D3, so I am using the Tokina 15-22 f4 lens. Just enough zoom, and it converts to an 11-16 f2.8 lens for my APS-C bodies.

Otherwise, if I wanted to spend 2-4 times as much, I would get the 16-35 f2.8 or 16-35 f4 IS. The edges at the wide end would much sharper than what I get at 15mm.

Heya,

How does that thing handle flare?

Very best,

A hood takes care of most situations except when the light source is at an angle within the view of the image. Most of the time, a simple placement of my hand will also work to remove the glare if the hood doesn't help, or I didn't bring it. The sample shots above would have had glare in the lower right frame, but the hood or hand eliminated it during the shot. The sun was up to the left and just outside the frame.

If I was buying a wide right now and had the money to do it, I would go for the new Canon 16-35mm 4 IS in a heartbeat.

KeenanRIVALS wrote in post #17019166
I know f/4 and above is extremely unattractive on paper....

I have a UWA that's f/2.8 and I've never shot under f/5.6 lol. I use it for weddings in a lot of poorly lit churches (no flash). I think with the 6D f/4 will be more than enough OP!

GregoryF wrote in post #17019698
If I was buying a wide right now and had the money to do it, I would go for the new Canon 16-35mm 4 IS in a heartbeat.

I agree. But that might be a couple hundred USD more than the Tokina.

I have the Tokina and it's a pretty nice lens. Just be aware that the hood is fixed, so no filters. I've seen where some folks jerry-rig push-on filter holders to the hood, but that can get fiddly.

OP, if the new Canon 16-35mm f4 IS is within your budget considering your prize (kudos on that, btw), then you should grab it.

OP, I have looked at the price on the lenses you are considering. For only a hundred or so more you could get a Canon 17-40 (check at the Canon refurb store for a really good price) and for another couple hundred more you could get the new Canon f4 16-35 which (I think) also has IS. My experience with Canon lenses as opposed to other manufacturers is that Canon lenses focus faster and more accurately. I consider that important.

As to distortion, it's easily corrected in post and vignetting can often be your friend (UWA may let more light in at the edges than you anticipate) and, if it's not, it's also easily correctable in post. So I would be more concerned with overall IQ and (as others have said) flare. Also the 17-40 (and the 16-35 - I think) is 77mm filter size so filters are not that difficult.

With UWA, you end up with nearly infinite DOF, and focusing on a hyperfocal object doesn't take long at all on 3rd party lenses. There are very good 3rd party options, and AF for landscapes doesn't really have to be fast, considering all the time taken to use tripods, composition, checking for focus in Live View, etc. Canon L lenses give you better build, weather sealing, and better edge to edge sharpness (on some lenses, not all L lenses though).

KeenanRIVALS wrote in post #17019166
All depends on what you plan to shoot, if you;re just getting a wide angle to add it to the kit (like I did) then I'd go with the Sigma, I know f/4 and above is extremely unattractive on paper but it does an amazing job at capturing scenery.

If you plan to do video or shoots out night then obviously the Tokina is the way to go

The most important is landscape but I thinking of using it to nightlife photography too so the f/2.8 is not a most have but for nightlife is very nice to have.

Another vote for the new 16-35 f4 IS.