Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 08 Jun 2010 (Tuesday) 00:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22

 
nightcat
Goldmember
4,533 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
Sep 12, 2010 07:29 |  #61

nureality wrote in post #10331456 (external link)
Filters most definitely can be used with the Sigma 8-16. Just like on its big brother the 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 DG EX HSM, the lens comes with a slide-on filter-thread holding ring. This ring is what the lens cap snaps into. Using that thread used for the lens cap you can use filters... on my Sigma 12-24 I've used Cokin Z-Pro filters for years.

Being an owner of both a Sigma 12-24 and a Tokina 11-16, I can say that the Tokina has better IQ than the Sigma 12-24... but the Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm on a film body or FF digital is the reason to own the lens. The Sigma 8-16 is a reworked version of the 12-24 for crops... 8mm UWA on a crop is about equivalent of 12mm on FF. And to the doubters all I gotta say is... "once you try it, you will want it". I will most definitely be getting an 8-16 this summer... to round out the family.

I'd NEVER buy the Canon 10-22... I think they are pointless. the 17-22mm that many 10-22 owners tout are really superfluous in such a lens. If you really think about it, its because of those 17-22mm that Canon couldn't make it a f/3.5 throughout the range, if not faster. The "telephoto" end of a UWA shouldn't be your priority in buying such a lens, and is quite oxymoronic if you think about it... yet every 10-22 owner lists it as a "benefit". I think the 10-22 buyers were just afraid to step away from OEM and are now justifying their decision with rubbish.

Agreed for these reasons plus the build. The Tokina 11-16mm is a great lens, and it does take filters. It has outstanding IQ and is built like an L. If I couldn't find the Tokina, I'd get the Sigma.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
xmattkx
Junior Member
22 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Sep 12, 2010 11:59 |  #62

nightcat wrote in post #10893738 (external link)
[/B]Agreed for these reasons plus the build. The Tokina 11-16mm is a great lens, and it does take filters. It has outstanding IQ and is built like an L. If I couldn't find the Tokina, I'd get the Sigma.

Remember that the Sig offers an extra 3mm and at this width, that very significant.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 16, 2010 23:05 |  #63

nureality wrote in post #10331456 (external link)
I'd NEVER buy the Canon 10-22... I think they are pointless. the 17-22mm that many 10-22 owners tout are really superfluous in such a lens. If you really think about it, its because of those 17-22mm that Canon couldn't make it a f/3.5 throughout the range, if not faster. The "telephoto" end of a UWA shouldn't be your priority in buying such a lens, and is quite oxymoronic if you think about it... yet every 10-22 owner lists it as a "benefit". I think the 10-22 buyers were just afraid to step away from OEM and are now justifying their decision with rubbish.

If you need a UWA, get the Sigma 8-16 if you want the widest imaginable lens for crop or the Tokina 11-16 if you need the most creatively freeing (albeit less wide and with limited range). One thing is for sure with both of these lenses, if you don't have a lens that starts at 17 or 18mm as your main zoom, the "gap" from 16mm to wherever your next lens starts is a PITA. These lenses pair will with 17-55's and 17-50's.

Firstly let me say that I don't own either of the UWA lenses yet, and am new to DSLR.

But the 17-22 range of the Canon is definitely something I could see myself making use of, and am siding towards the Canon out of the bunch available for this reason. The Tokina would be more like a prime lens in comparison to the Canon, and even the Sigma 8-16 - the 8-16 differences would be far more dramatic than the 11-16 range, obviously.

If you were not interested in the zoom of the 10-22 then a prime would be a much better alternative would it not?

The speed of the Tokina is definitely an advantage, but the Canon is still f3.5 at 10mm, so I don't see that difference as anything crucial. The way I see it, to be able to go from 10mm to 22mm without changing lenses would not be superfluous, as you put it. I haven't owned an UWA yet, but from what I can see the UWA range isn't always applicable, to be able to zoom in to 18 or 20 or 22mm would be handy without having to change.

From the best prices I can find, the Canon is still the most expensive, followed by the 8-16, the 11-16 and then the Sigma is the cheapest (about 70% of the cost of the Canon).

But I am just saying that it isn't just the owners of the 10-22 that think the 17-22 is an added feature, I am definitely leaning towards the Canon for that reason - even if it is at the cost of losing some max aperture and slight corner sharpness, which would be due to the zoom I would think?


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,806 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 17, 2010 00:13 |  #64

The Sigma 8-16's IQ is nothing like the 12-24's IQ - it's every bit as good as the Tokina or Canon.

After all, the 12-24 was a pioneering lens - no-one had ever made a zoom that wide, and it was almost an experiment. The 8-16 is a next-generation design - now that Sigma knew that such a wide lens worked, they worked on making the next one as sharp as possible, and with great results.

Now, I'm just waiting for a 12-24 Mk II...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Deep ­ Pocket
Goldmember
1,329 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
     
Sep 17, 2010 00:53 |  #65
bannedPermanent ban

It still bothers me that some people talk of third-party lenses that they must be of low quality..

Both are great lenses. You couldn't go wrong with either.


17 and learning..
Canon Rebel XSI/450D:
Sigma 30 f/1.4, EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, 18-55 Kit Lens

Deviantart (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
teva
Member
36 posts
Joined Jul 2010
     
Sep 17, 2010 05:24 |  #66

How does sigma 8-16 compare to the canon on 10mm? The sharpness and distortion wise? I'm thinking if they are almost the same at 10mm, then i'll most surely gor for sigma for extra 2mm on wide side. I don't really care about loosing mm on the tele .. after all i am looking for wide.

tnx




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Spacemunkie
Goldmember
Avatar
1,555 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 198
Joined Apr 2008
     
Sep 17, 2010 06:31 |  #67

All this thread has succeeded in achieving is making me want a Siggy 8-16.

Loved my 10-20 and wish I'd never sold it. 12-24 doesn't quite cut the mustard on my 7D.

8-16 looks like UWA nirvana on a cropper.


Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tjbrock42
Senior Member
944 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Indiana
     
Sep 18, 2010 08:49 as a reply to  @ Spacemunkie's post |  #68

Have a look at the pictures posted on the flickr groups for these lenses. I didn't look at the 10-22 much but I did click through quite a few pages from the Sigma 8-16 and the Tokina 11-16. Observations below:

It seemed like the 8-16 has more vignetting but users really utilize the extra 3mm (4.8mm) for composition.

The Tokina seems to produce better color/contrast with less vignetting. Users utilize it's low light capabilities too.

I didn't notice too much distortion from either one. A lot of HDR used with both though, so this kind of distracts from their true abilities.

I am choosing between these two and I think I like (and will use) the wide angle more than the the wide aperture. The vignetting doesn't really bother me for some reason. I would miss the color/contrast though. Additionally, there are very few pictures from the tokina group that I thought could not have been taken with the sigma.

For the OP: The Canon does seem to be a good compromise right in between these two lenses.

Finally, I called Adorama and B&H and asked which one they recommend. Both salesmen said the Tokina. They agreed the Canon was overpriced. Go figure.


6D
24-105L, 50 STM, 135L, 430EX II
For Sale: 40D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HyperYagami
Goldmember
2,405 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY, USA
     
Sep 18, 2010 15:04 |  #69

nureality wrote in post #10331456 (external link)
I'd NEVER buy the Canon 10-22... I think they are pointless.

the only question is if changes lens bothers you. if no then yes, if yes then no.



5D3 and a few lens
es.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,806 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 18, 2010 20:43 |  #70

HyperYagami wrote in post #10932950 (external link)
the only question is if changes lens bothers you. if no then yes, if yes then no.

Most of the time, if you want something longer than 26mm full-frame equivalent, you also want something longer than 35mm.

The only real solution to lens changes is multiple bodies.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HyperYagami
Goldmember
2,405 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY, USA
     
Sep 19, 2010 09:25 |  #71

Shadowblade wrote in post #10934292 (external link)
Most of the time, if you want something longer than 26mm full-frame equivalent, you also want something longer than 35mm.

The only real solution to lens changes is multiple bodies.

it depends on the person, you can't speak for everyone, 17-22 might be not for you but yes for some. everyone rates convenience differently on different things.



5D3 and a few lens
es.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tjbrock42
Senior Member
944 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Indiana
     
Sep 20, 2010 11:33 |  #72

I agree, having the extra 17-22mm only adds to its versatility, especially if the IQ is good.

Having said that, I rarely (if ever) used the 18-22mm on my 17-55. It seemed like it was either zoomed all the way out, all the way in, or somewhere around 30mm. Once I got my 50mm prime, the lens was only used for wide angle stuff. and 17mm on a crop sensor is often not wide enough. So this is why I am in the process of selling my 17-55 and replacing it with a UWA zoom and a sigma 30 f/1.4.

My guess is the 17-22mm range on the 10-22 would seem some use, but not enough for me personally.


6D
24-105L, 50 STM, 135L, 430EX II
For Sale: 40D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tjbrock42
Senior Member
944 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Indiana
     
Oct 01, 2010 23:09 as a reply to  @ tjbrock42's post |  #73

Trying to bring the thread back to life here guys, help me out.

I emailed Lens Rentals to see their thoughts on how the Sigma compares to the other two. This is the response I got:

"The wideness of it is extremely cool, there's a significant difference between 8mm and 10mm. There's a bit of penalty, too, the Sigma's a bit soft in the corners compared to the others, so I would hesitate to use it for say architectural work, but otherwise its an excellent lens.

Roger"

I'm struggling to find the Tokina, so trying to decide between the Canon and Sigma now.

Do you guys think the aperture of the Sigma would be enough for most applications? Or too limiting?

Still can't find much about how the max magnification compares between the Sigma and Canon.


6D
24-105L, 50 STM, 135L, 430EX II
For Sale: 40D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rkkwan
Member
134 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Oct 04, 2010 15:30 |  #74

tjbrock42 wrote in post #11018408 (external link)
I'm struggling to find the Tokina, so trying to decide between the Canon and Sigma now.

Do you guys think the aperture of the Sigma would be enough for most applications? Or too limiting?

Still can't find much about how the max magnification compares between the Sigma and Canon.

The Sigma is indeed quite slow. But I'll say 90% of my shots with it are between 8-11 or 12mm, and F4.5-5 is not bad, since I can generally handheld at 1/8 or so with no shake. I'll switch to my 17-55/2.8IS if I need a tighter crop of something inside a dark church, for example. [BTW, maximum aperture is F5 from about 9 to 14mm. It is F4.5 only at the widest setting; and like I said, I hardly use it at over 14mm. So, think of it as a F5 lens.]

See post #56 for info about max magnification. I don't know what other info you're actually looking for. Since the minimum focusing distance are basically identical, maximum mag will be about the same for 10-16mm for either lens. The Canon of course will give you better magnification when you zoom it to use 17-22mm.


rkkwan.zenfolio.com (external link)
5D/BG-E4; 70-200/2.8L IS II, Sigma 8-16, Tamron 28-75 Asph, Tokina 10-17 Fish, 1.4x III; 580EX II; G7 X
Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tjbrock42
Senior Member
944 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Indiana
     
Oct 04, 2010 20:47 as a reply to  @ rkkwan's post |  #75

You are right, it was right there for me to see. I must have overlooked it when viewing the pictures that illustrated the differece between 8mm and 10mm.:)

I was curious about this because I always find myself pushing the magnification limits of all of my lenses. More is always better for me in this regard. Not a necessity, but a bonus. It appears the Tokina at .09x (1:11.6) is the loser in this department.

I don't think this will be the deciding factor for many people, it is certainly a consideration.


6D
24-105L, 50 STM, 135L, 430EX II
For Sale: 40D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

40,981 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is APK100
1436 guests, 247 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.