Best Ultra Wide Lens

I use my Canon 10-22 as a walkaround lens. It's fantastic. I perfer the build quality of the Canon over the Tokina (if you can imagine that) because of the weight. I place a huge value on weight/performance ratios.

ninext wrote in post #5514033
i bought a canon to use canon lenses

[GIFS ARE NOT RENDERED IN QUOTES]

the only third party lenses i'd buy are the ones canon can't cover. like the peleng 8mm.

...and a Sunpak flash.

canon 10-22 was my favorite lens that i have owned. great IQ.

mikeyjm26 wrote in post #5508209
I am kinda of set on either the Canon or the Tokina 11-16. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Another vote for the Canon 10-22.

Its range is far more versatile than the Tokina's. It's a 16-35mm equivalent lens, covering everything from ultrawide (16mm) to "almost" normal (35mm).

I.Q. wise, Tokina lenses have always been very sharp. But they've always had big problems with severe chromatic aberrations too. This was true for their 12-24mm lens, it was true for their 16-50mm lens, for their 50-135mm lens, and it remains true for their latest lens. Generally, I think Tokina engineers are putting a premium on sharpness at the expense of severe distortion, whereas equivalent Canon lenses strike a good balance between the two.

You can fix mild CA in postprocessing, but fixing harsh CA will degrade the I.Q. According to photozone, the average width of CA on the Tokina is nearly 2 pixels wide on a 350D. That's rather extreme, in my opinion.

Canon 10-22 was the first lens I purchased after getting my 40D. I have gotten some great shots with it. I also got it at a good price at Adorama so that helped make my decision easier. Haven't experienced the others, but since I have the 10-22 I don't feel a need. Good luck!

FWIW, The CA on my two Tokina lenses is actually the easiest CA to fix of that on any of my lenses. In the occasions it crops up (which is actually fairly rare), I can almost always completely correct it in Lightroom or with PT Lens. To put it another way, I've taken about 4,000 photos with my 12-24, and about 900 with my 10-17, and I have yet to have a single image ruined by CA.

Jman13 wrote in post #5514181
I don't understand this...so you'll use a Canon lens over a third party lens even when the third party lens is superior to the Canon lens for less money? Just to have 'Canon' on the barrel? In my opinion, one of the best things about the Canon system is that you have access to the full Canon lineup, plus all of Sigma, Tamron and Tokina's lenses, as well as a huge number of older (and in some cases spectacular) manual focus lenses like Carl Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, Pentax, and Nikon. It's wonderful.

Try finding something in the Canon lineup for $250 that can match my Zeiss Sonnar 85 f/2.8. In fact, the cheapest lens that gets you that kind of image quality is probably the 135L. Now, I'm obviously not a Canon hater...I've got 4 Canon lenses and have owned three others (50 f/1.8, 135L and 80-200L), and they are great, but I'll never turn down fantastic glass at a great price just to have the Canon brand name on it.

i wouldn't turn down fantastic glass. if i'm paying money i'd personally rather go with canon as long as they have a viable alternative.

if the 11-16 was $200 maybe i'd be more interested in it. but as it stands now its not much cheaper than the 10-22 and the 10-22 is designed for use on my camera and future canon 1.6 crop cameras.

angryhampster wrote in post #5514627
...and a Sunpak flash.

find me a new canon auto thyristor flash and i'll trade in my sunpaks.

ninext wrote in post #5516298
i wouldn't turn down fantastic glass. if i'm paying money i'd personally rather go with canon as long as they have a viable alternative.

if the 11-16 was $200 maybe i'd be more interested in it. but as it stands now its not much cheaper than the 10-22 and the 10-22 is designed for use on my camera and future canon 1.6 crop cameras.

I see your point, and there are certainly reasons to go for the Canon (added range for one), but the Tokina is a superior optic in most ways, so it just struck me as odd.

Canon 10-22MM EF-S get my vote for the crop body UWA. I have had mime for two years and I used it all the time at weddings and other group events. It is also a fun landscape lens. IQ is great and colors/contrast rival L glass IMHO

Tokina 11-16 - just waiting for mine to be delivered.

10-22 was my first "proper lens after getting my 40D and I love it.....

Brilliant lens very versatile....

I had the Canon 10-22. Loved it until I tried the Tokina 12-24.

The Tokina is better in EVERY respect except 1 - going to 10mm.

Tokina is sharper wide open.
Tokina is better built.
Tokina is constant f/4 (brighter at the long end)
Tokina goes to 24mm making it a better WA UWA.
Tokina is less money & comes with a hood.

Canon goes to 10mm and therefore can give you the extra little UWA kick that these lenses are all about.

I'm seriously considering trying the new Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 to try to gain back 1mm of the 2 that I lost going from the Canon to the Tokina 12-24.

why couldn't Tokina make it 10-15mm instead of 11-16?? I mean, When I buy an UWA I want ultrawide, I am more concerned about the wide end than the narrow end.. and 1mm can make a difference at the wide end. A Tokina 10-15 would have been a no brainer against the Canon..

At the end of the day, I'm almost certain I will go for the Tokina 11-16, I will use it for interiors, and f/2.8 sounds sweet.

n1as wrote in post #5556406
Tokina goes to 24mm making it a better WA UWA.

I'm seriously considering trying the new Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 to try to gain back 1mm of the 2 that I lost going from the Canon to the Tokina 12-24.

To lose the 8mm on the long end that you said made it a better WA UWA?