Ultra Wide Angle 12-24

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2188574
I don't think you'd be unhappy with any of the UWA offerings.

Well, the Canon 10-22 is expensive, and has a bad build apparently, but otherwise it seems like a lens you can't go wrong with. The Sigma seems like a sharp lens if you get a good copy, but has serious quality control problems and some flaws (lens cap as one.) The Tokina has the perfect focal length for me, but there is no review on fredmiranda. I think the Tokina could be best suited for me, just want some more opinions. I'm going to search the forum.

I think to state that the Canon has a bad build quality is quite harsh.....mine is very good as are other copies that I've used. It certainly isnt poor quality. I haven't used the other brands so cant compare brand to brand, but I'm happy with the Canon.

sugarzebra wrote in post #2188647
I think to state that the Canon has a bad build quality is quite harsh.....mine is very good as are other copies that I've used. It certainly isnt poor quality. I haven't used the other brands so cant compare brand to brand, but I'm happy with the Canon.

Your probably right. I haven't handled any so I shouldn't comment. The canon seems very light though. I think the Tokina and Sigma weigh around what my 70-200 F4L weighs.

Yes, its only 13.6 oz compared to the 1.6 lbs your 70-200 weighs

sugarzebra wrote in post #2188689
Yes, its only 13.6 oz compared to the 1.6 lbs your 70-200 weighs

I apologize, but I'm in Canada, and have no idea what an OZ compares to. At the same time, i can't tell you much in grams either, only lbs, go figure.

With my new firefox plug in though that converts units, it appears the Canon is approx half the weight of my 70-200 F4L.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2188694
I apologize, but I'm in Canada, and have no idea what an OZ compares to. At the same time, i can't tell you much in grams either, only lbs, go figure.

With my new firefox plug in though that converts units, it appears the Canon is approx half the weight of my 70-200 F4L.

Hey, I'm just down the road from you but old enough that most of my education was before we switched to metric.....anyway, the 10-22 is 385g and the 70-200 f/4 is 705g, making the 10-22 a little more than half the weight of the 70-200.

sugarzebra wrote in post #2188738
Hey, I'm just down the road from you but old enough that most of my education was before we switched to metric.....anyway, the 10-22 is 385g and the 70-200 f/4 is 705g, making the 10-22 a little more than half the weight of the 70-200.

Yeah. I like metric and imperial, different things. I much prefer liters, and I sometimes perfer centimeters to inches, although if we're talking about a product that is large generally inches is easier since you can just grab a measuring tape and do a quick estimate without doing any calculations. Honestly, in a perfect world I think we'de all just go by SI units and save ourselves the hassle of all this.

I think the tokina 12-24 might be the lens for me. I have yet to hear anything bad about it (read some posts here.) But, the Sigma has good comments here too, but I think it has worse QC issues then the Tokina probably (maybe the Tokina has good QC?)

You can check the reviews on photozone.de for comparison between the 3 lenses and then make a decision for yourself. I wouldn't worry about QC too much as every company will have some slippage. If you think you got a bad one, just send it in for a calibration.

mxwphoto wrote in post #2203740
You can check the reviews on photozone.de for comparison between the 3 lenses and then make a decision for yourself. I wouldn't worry about QC too much as every company will have some slippage. If you think you got a bad one, just send it in for a calibration.

I checked, but don't see a comparison of all 3?

Hitting this thread late & just skimmed.

First of all, run a search here, there was a long thread on example images for the Tokina and the Canon. The Tokina held up to Canon's image quality.

I have used the Canon and bought the Tokina. The Canon handles ok, but is built like a kit lens; not necessarily poorly, just feels cheap, cheap, cheap. The Tokina reminds me of an L lens without the red stripe. So far I love the Tokina's handling & output. No regrets.

AFAIK, the Tokina and Sigma will mount on a FF ok, but will vignette at some zoom ranges on anything other than a 1.6 crop body (I've read the Tokina is ok from about 14mm on a 1.3 and 18mm on a FF). The Canon is an EF-S and will only mount on a 1.6 crop body.

claudermilk wrote in post #2204023
Hitting this thread late & just skimmed.

First of all, run a search here, there was a long thread on example images for the Tokina and the Canon. The Tokina held up to Canon's image quality.

I have used the Canon and bought the Tokina. The Canon handles ok, but is built like a kit lens; not necessarily poorly, just feels cheap, cheap, cheap. The Tokina reminds me of an L lens without the red stripe. So far I love the Tokina's handling & output. No regrets.

AFAIK, the Tokina and Sigma will mount on a FF ok, but will vignette at some zoom ranges on anything other than a 1.6 crop body (I've read the Tokina is ok from about 14mm on a 1.3 and 18mm on a FF). The Canon is an EF-S and will only mount on a 1.6 crop body.

Sorry, I searched quite a bit before, but didn't see a comparison. Perhaps you remember the title of the thread or something that could help me search for it?

BTW, it looks like I'll be getting the Sigma 24-70. For some reason as much as I'de prefer 12-24 to continue the focal length I feel the Sigma builld is less millitray like and I should stick with sigma for that combo. What do you guys think? If I have one Sigma lens (24-70) should I get another Sigma to cover the wider part that it isn't covering? I have a 70-200 F4/L for my longer range.

sorry jag. but getting a lens just because you dont feel comfortable with a gap/overlap is just silly. the 12-24 sigma may be a nice lens, but that big front element is a pain too deal with. also, having the 2extra mm on the wide end that a 10-20/22 will offer will be MUCH more significant than 2-4mm on the long end. if you want to stick sigma, which is perfectly fine, go with the 10-20.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2205744
sorry jag. but getting a lens just because you dont feel comfortable with a gap/overlap is just silly. the 12-24 sigma may be a nice lens, but that big front element is a pain too deal with. also, having the 2extra mm on the wide end that a 10-20/22 will offer will be MUCH more significant than 2-4mm on the long end. if you want to stick sigma, which is perfectly fine, go with the 10-20.

Hm, good advice.

Is the FOV much bigger on the 2mm at the wide end then the 2mm on the long end though? That's what I'm curious about.

it works in percentages. mind u my calculations could be completely wrong. but its something like 10mm is about 20% wider than 12mm. whereas 22 would be only less than 10% longer than 24. basically its an invisible gap, and you are never going to need to fill it.

Agree completely with Billy. And I don't see the logic in requiring to go for the sigma if you have a sig 24-70.