Best fast UWA lens ~$500?

I'd really like to purchase an UWA lens that is also very capable at low light for indoor shots, without flash. So far, my research has led me to the Sigma 20mm/f1.8, which is priced at just under $500.

Anyone else have recommendations for a decent wide and fast lens for my XSi? It appears that because I'm looking for something with a high aperture, I'm limited to primes, which I don't mind at all.

Thanks!

20mm on a Rebel is not UWA. Set your kit lens at 20mm and see if that's the view you want, but I'm guessing it's not.

If you can budge on the price a bit then you can consider the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Otherwise, I'm not aware of any fast lens, prime or zoom, that would be considered UWA on a crop-body that is available at that price level.

I'm a prime guy, but I have to recommend the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8. That is, IF the 2.8 will do the job for you. This lens is far more than decent. Extremely sharp and built like a tank. I have the XSI and its a good pair.

You may want to consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 lens. Great lens and very fast, love it.
Unfortunately, a new lens runs roughly $600. Look on the bright side, you get a lens hood included with purchase price.

I got mine used used for...just over $500 I believe. I love it and it is tack sharp at F2.8. Truly an amazing lens and an actually UWA. 20mm is not a UWA Jubu. Might want to be clear on what you're looking for.

+1 on the Tokina 11-16. It's sharp wide open and its fast enough for low lighting conditions. The distortion isn't as bad as the Sigma 10-20mm that I used to have.

Only thing about this lens is that it's hard to find. It's on a nationwide backorder since the last time i checked.

How does the Tokina 11-16 compare with the Canon 10-22 in terms of image quality on a 1.6 crop body?

I'm afraid the narrow range of the 11-16 makes it a very specific lens to use ... is the Canon any much better in this regard?

MS-18E wrote in post #8527794
How does the Tokina 11-16 compare with the Canon 10-22 in terms of image quality on a 1.6 crop body?

I'm afraid the narrow range of the 11-16 makes it a very specific lens to use ... is the Canon any much better in this regard?

I've never owned a Canon 10-22, but judging from pictures from the Lens Sample Archive thread, I believe that the Tokina is right up there with the Canon in terms of image quality.

10-22 VS. 11-16
It's obvious the Canon has the advantage in range, but the Tokina DOES have a constant f/2.8 versus the canon's f/3.5-4.5.

Range vs. speed ...... if only Canon made their 10-22 a f2.8 Would have been a no brainer. Now I'll have to think more

Range? It's a UWA...should only be concern with the wide end. I don't think I've zoomed even 1% of the time I have that lens on.

+1 on the Tokina 11-16. It's sharp @ f2.8, AF is pretty fast and accurate, and the build is superb. I also noticed that with the Tokina I usually stay on the wide end, plus my kit lens starts at 18mm so I don't really have a concern with the narrow range on the Tokina

during my research, other than the narrower range than the Canon 10-22, the Tokina is on par in almost every other category if not better than the Canon

_aravena wrote in post #8527874
Range? It's a UWA...should only be concern with the wide end. I don't think I've zoomed even 1% of the time I have that lens on.

I'm on the opposing end of this. I quite often use my 10-22 as a walk-around for parks and whatnot and I do like the range the Canon gives. I can use 10mm for when I want an UWA perspective and quickly change to 22mm if I don't want the UWA feeling. the 11-16 however is quite limited on the normal perspective so it might require bringing an extra lens. Also, 10mm is wider compared to 11mm. It might only be 1mm but at the wide end, it really makes a difference.

It's true though the 11-16 is a lot faster than the 10-22. Even though you can easily handhold the 10-22 at extremely low shutter speeds, it does not do any help if your subject is moving. Those times is when the 11-16 truly outshine the 10-22.

i like my tokina 11mm, 12mm, 13mm, 14mm, 15mm, 16mm f/2.8 primes...

k.lee wrote in post #8534924
I'm on the opposing end of this. I quite often use my 10-22 as a walk-around for parks and whatnot and I do like the range the Canon gives. I can use 10mm for when I want an UWA perspective and quickly change to 22mm if I don't want the UWA feeling. the 11-16 however is quite limited on the normal perspective so it might require bringing an extra lens. Also, 10mm is wider compared to 11mm. It might only be 1mm but at the wide end, it really makes a difference.

It's true though the 11-16 is a lot faster than the 10-22. Even though you can easily handhold the 10-22 at extremely low shutter speeds, it does not do any help if your subject is moving. Those times is when the 11-16 truly outshine the 10-22.

Not really as I've had a 10 and 11 UWA and notice no difference...even when I showed 10, 11, 12, etc. Did notice a difference from 10 to 12 but not 11. Yes, slow shutter speeds but F3.5 is a big difference at F2.8 where' I've had to set it and set the shutter to 1/10.

Tokina's 11-16mm Angle of view: 104-82°

Canon's 10-22mm Angle of View: 107.5-63.5°

3.5° Doesn't make THAT big of a difference.

Source: B&H