Ultra Wide Angle Lens Poll!

Last post before I purchase, pick what lens you believe would be the best for Landscapes, city photography, long exposures, and MAYBE astro (Maybe because I have never done it). Make sure to vote, so I can finally pull the trigger on buying one! Cheers

Just curious... Why such a limited range of the excellent available choices? Admittedly, some of these are outrageously expensive.

Sigma 8mm, Sigma 15mm, Canon 8-15mm, Canon 11-24, Rokinon 12mm, Rokinon 14mm, and I am sure a ton of others.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17636221
Just curious... Why such a limited range of the excellent available choices? Admittedly, some of these are outrageously expensive.

Sigma 8mm, Sigma 15mm, Canon 8-15mm, Canon 11-24, Rokinon 12mm, Rokinon 14mm, and I am sure a ton of others.

Well I'm guessing OP is using crop based on the lenses listed so for instance, the 11-24 would be a bit of a waste. One could buy a 16-35/4 and a 6D, and have money left over for a short vacation over buying and using the 11-24 on crop.

The Tokina 11-20 is out there too. Had one, badly decentered and returned it but haven't been able to find a replacement in stock and now I am back to not being decided on an UWA for me.

I would take a wild guess and say the only reason the 10-22 I s leading by such a wide margin over the 10-18, is because the 10-22 voters own one, and have never shot a 10-18. I had a 10-22 for eight years, great lens. I decided to get a complete STM lens kit for my T6s. The 10-22mm went to my brother.

anscochrome wrote in post #17636388
I would take a wild guess and say the only reason the 10-22 I s leading by such a wide margin over the 10-18, is because the 10-22 voters own one, and have never shot a 10-18. I had a 10-22 for eight years, great lens. I decided to get a complete STM lens kit for my T6s. The 10-22mm went to my brother.

Heya,

It's a preference thing. The 10-22 is older, sure. The 10-18 has slightly better optics (very slightly), and IS. AF is meaningless on these lenses really, so that's not something I'd even care to compare (STM vs USM). The key difference is the flare performance. The 10-18 does ok, but the 10-22 does better at flare handling. It's that simple. The 10-18 is cheaper new, overall has great performance for it's cost, and is a good bargain lens. But it all comes down to what you put emphasis on. In an ultrawide, my number one priority is flare performance, my second priority is normal filter use (no bulbous fronts that cannot take normal threaded filters), and my third priority is corner sharpness when stopped down a bit. After that, the rest is just whatever to me (AF, IS, etc). I do care however about how light sources (light spikes) render at narrow apertures (F16, F22), but not nearly as much as how an ultrawide handles flare. And the 10-22 simply handles flare better.

Very best,

You did not say what or if there was a budget. You also didn't say crop of FF, but based on those in your poll I assume you want for a crop camera. (I answer based on a crop camera.)

I didn't vote, because on a crop Canon camera I like the Sigma 8-16mm. It is as sharp or sharper than the Canon 10-22mm and obviously wider. The negatives are if you want to use screw-in filters it isn't going to happen, and it only goes 10 16mm.

The Sigma in your poll (not the f/3.5 version) would be my second choice, just under the Canon in sharpness and is less expensive.

Have not used the Tokina II, some say it is sharper than the Canon 10-22. I didn't need a f/2.8 in an UWA and the I flared in the sun so did not purchase. If you do want to do astro, it would probably be the best option.

If on a budget, they say the Canon 10-18 is good but I've never used it (it wasn't available when I was buying). To be honest though I prefer non-Canon EF-S UWA lenses. Reason add a non-canon 1.4X TC to an non-Canon lens and it can be used on a non-EF crop lens to make it usable with little to no vignetting on a FF camera. In case you went FF, this would allow one to have a workable UWA on a FF until an appropriate (actual) FF lens is purchased. This does not work with EF-S lenses. The 10-20 does better at this than the 8-16 for some reason.

if you're doing a lot of night city shots, i'd look at the number of aperture blades...the 10-22mm, and 10-20mm will only give you 6 pointed stars...while the 10-18mm will give you 14...the tokina however will give you 18...

so if you're mainly using it for nightscapes, and maybe astro i think the tokina is the choice

for all other landscapes shots, i doubt you're really going to see much of a difference between any of them if you're tripod mounted, and stopped down to f8-f10...except for a possible difference in flare

if for some reason you have not come across this site, he is my go-to guy for reviews. If you like what he has to offer, click the buy button from his site to give him a few bucks for referring you.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-4.5-5.6-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

FWIW, votes on the internet can be a popularity contest, the 10-22 has been around for 10 years, while it is certainly a fine lens, it has many times the following as the new 10-18. Oh, and I don't have a wide lens for crop so i don't have a vote. but i do like my FF tokina, great value for what i needed it for.

It gets so confusing when the Moon tells me the 10-22mm is better than comes back and tells the the 10-18mm is better!

The Tokina would be the most useful for events and other low light subject matter,
The two Canons are both excellent.
I have no experience at all with the SIGMA.

I picked up a used 10-22mm for my IR Xti about 30 days before the 10-18mm was announced. I really liek it a feel it has excellent IQ.

I likely would have gotten the more affordable and IS equipped 10-18mm if I had known. That said, I find I shoot a lot @ 22mm