Ultra Wide Angle 12-24

Tokina or Sigma? What do you guys think? I want a lens that ends in 24 as I am going to be getting a 24-70 2.8 lens. The sigma is probably easier to find used. I've heard something about soft copies of the Sigma, but I don't know, I haven't done much research. I'm scared of the build quality on the 10-22 Canon and the fact it's EF-S. I'm more inclined towards the Sigma cause I have a feeling I can send it to get calibrated easily, and because I am probably going to be getting the Sigma 24-70.

well, the sigma is a fullframe compatable lens. meaning that it has a very large front element like a fisheye, and therefore cannot take front filters, or hoods other than the built in one, and uses a lenscap that slides over the front of the lens and is notorious for falling off in the bag. the tokina is, on the other hand, built for crop camera, and therefore can take filters. the 10-22 is a well built lens, with L lke image quality, and if you werent planning on getting a non crop body soon, i wouldnt hesitate to get it. the 10-20 sigma is also good for a bit less money.

of the four i would go with the 10-22 if i were you. the sigma is a nice lens, but unless you are going to be getting a fullframe body very soon, the large front element design would scare me away fast.

The Tokina will work on a 1.3 cropped or full frame camera. You'll just get vignetting(heavy on full frame, not too bad after about 15mm on a 1.3 crop). The Sigma is good if you want to go to a 1D series camera or full frame.

So if you want a fully compatible ultra wide, Sigma's 12-24 would be your best bet.

No matter what, the Sigma 12-24 is going to be soft at the wide end. I bet Sigma's engineering department had nightmares after this lens. Will you be switching to a FF in the near future? If yes and you need that REALLY wide angle, then go for it as it's the only recltilinear FF lens out there. If you're gonna stay on APS-C for at least a few more years, then go for the EF-S incarnation from Sigma as you'll get better IQ and a bit wider at the wide end (and lower price to boot).

If going with one that starts at 12mm I'd go for the Tokina 12-24, if you're wanting wide I'd probably pick up the Sigma 10-20 EX, well built, good IQ, and cheaper than the alternatives. From 20mm to 4mm isn't much of a gap that I'd worry about.

Also Jag, keep it up and you'll be buying/selling more gear than Ronald!

Now I'm confused.

I probably won't be changing anytime soon, so the EF-S maybe isn't that big of a deal. 10-20 doesn't sound like it's for me, I want something that is very nice with the Sigma 24-70.

So if I can deal with the 2mm gap, is the 10-22 EF-S a no brainer?

20-24 and 22-24 are both very negligable gaps. but if you can afford the 10-22 by all means go for it. its a great lens.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2187593
Now I'm confused.

I probably won't be changing anytime soon, so the EF-S maybe isn't that big of a deal. 10-20 doesn't sound like it's for me, I want something that is very nice with the Sigma 24-70.

So if I can deal with the 2mm gap, is the 10-22 EF-S a no brainer?

Well EF-S is the most re-stricting. It can't mount a lot of cameras(D30, D60, 10D, 1D series[1.3 crop], full frame)

You can still use Sigma's 10-20 or Tokina's 12-24 on those cameras. It will vignette a tad on the 1.3 crop and a decent amount on full frame, but they still are usable.

Does the 10-22 EF-S beat out the Tokina and Sigma 10-20 by a longrun? If the quality difference is large enough, then there is no question i am stuck with the 10-22. I know I'de always regret buying something else if I knew for a couple hundred more I could have had something much sharper.

The Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24, and Sigma 10-20 are all about equal in terms of sharpness and color reproduction. The Canon is arguably the poorest built of the three, the Tokina is built like a tank and the Sigma is of the EX series (same as the 24-70 you're considering) and is well built too. For $200+ less than the canon, with a hood for me the Sigma is a no brainer.

You won't find a 2-4mm anything to worry about at all.

The 10-22 is a very nice lens and the IQ is great. My only problem with it is that the focus & zooming rings are in the reversed position from my other lenses and I'm a slow learner I doubt you would have much use for the 10mm end on a FF body, so just plan on selling it when you/if you go to a FF body (you'll want the 16-35 then anyway)!

Dorman wrote in post #2187629
The Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24, and Sigma 10-20 are all about equal in terms of sharpness and color reproduction. The Canon is arguably the poorest built of the three, the Tokina is built like a tank and the Sigma is of the EX series (same as the 24-70 you're considering) and is well built too. For $200+ less than the canon, with a hood for me the Sigma is a no brainer.

You won't find a 2-4mm anything to worry about at all.

Interesting. I really would rather get a Sigma then a Canon because if it's soft I could just send it for calibration, and because I don't want to go buyign hoods seperatley. I am scared of the Canon being built like the kit lens (weight wise and all.)

Any other opinions? I like the idea of a Sigma, but once again, I don't want to leave a gap in my focal lengths, especially a 4mm gap. I know it's nutty, but it is for peace of mind, I'de like to be able to say I have 10-200mm covered then say 10-20 and 24-200. I want to get rid of my kit lens so that wouldn't cover those focal lengths.

What's quality control on the Tokina like? Do they calibrate them if you send them in? I believe they have a good warranty too, no? I think it comes with the hood and all too.

Does the 4mm not matter much because I'm on a crop body or something?

Okay, it appears that Sigma offers a 1 year warranty + 3 year USA (no good for me as I'm in Canada), and Tokina offers a 3 year. For some resaon I thought Sigma had like a 5 year warranty.

The 4mm gap is a non issue really, you are being nutty and neurotic. Think of it this way, what situation are you EVER going to be in where you'll lose the shot because you twisted the zoom ring and got to 20mm, you said damn too short, swapped over to the 24-70 and rotated and hit 24mm, damn too long! I would've had the shot if I just had 22-23mm....gggrrr...., here's a hint, NEVER!

Jag, throw your kit lens on there and just go between 20mm-24mm back and fourth, not much difference at all, and any difference would be made up by one-two steps in the field.

Do the Sigma 10-20 EX and 24-70 EX, awesome combo.

Dorman wrote in post #2187678
The 4mm gap is a non issue really, you are being nutty and neurotic. Think of it this way, what situation are you EVER going to be in where you'll lose the shot because you twisted the zoom ring and got to 20mm, you said damn too short, swapped over to the 24-70 and rotated and hit 24mm, damn too long! I would've had the shot if I just had 22-23mm....gggrrr...., here's a hint, NEVER!

Jag, throw your kit lens on there and just go between 20mm-24mm back and fourth, not much difference at all, and any difference would be made up by one-two steps in the field.

Do the Sigma 10-20 EX and 24-70 EX, awesome combo.

I'm pretty sure I'm decided on that, but I'll wait for a few more opinions.