which (crop specific) UWA do you have or would you buy, and why?

Sigma 8-16mm
Sigma 10-20mm 4~5.6
Sigma 10-20mm 3.5
Canon 10-22mm
Tamron 10-24mm
Tokina 11-16mm

What would you buy (or did you), and why? I understand money drives some of the options here, but lets say for the sake of this exercise you can get anything on the list (used, rebates, whatever).

Personally, I have the tokina, but I'm wondering about either the siggy 10-20 variable or the canon 10-22. Why? Because I LOVE wide lenses and they both have less distortion than the tokina (but aren't as sharp in the corners?). The canon is more expensive, but beyond that it seems like the better lens (less distortions, better flare control etc). My other consideration is the 8-16mm because I had a 12-24mm on FF but I'm not sure I need 8mm and I really like having a lens that can take filters again.

The Canon one for 2 reasons :
-I had it, very reliable, great IQ, sharp and easily sellable used
-new bodies have features that recognizes the Lens and correct vignetting when shooting JPEG. Only available for Canon lenses of course...

how would you compare it to your 17-40?

because that is the way I'm leaning honestly. Wider, lighter, only a half stop slower at 10mm... Optically better. Less distortions... Yeah yeah, I like the tokina's build and the fact it's 2.8, but I've always used slower UWAs on all my setups so far....

I knew 10-22 on aps and 17-40 on FF, I never had those lenses at the same time on the same format to compare. However, I never felt the need to compare them. I didn't shoot a lot with 10-22. The need for UWA came with FF.

The range is quite the same, with a little advantage to 10-22 that is equivalent to 16-35 : a little wider and honestly 5mm longer is invisible. Hmm might be the same between 16 and 17mm wide !?!

IQ is from my feels better on 17-40, just because it's an L. Vignetting, flare really appear on FF

Built is quite the same too. The 10-22 and 17-40 have same size and height. What I appreciate paired with 5D because it's my most compact Lens. Nice to take as a single walkaround lens.

The L advantage is to be f4 constant and to come with a hood (the same as 10-22 one).

I recently feel the need of F2.8 in that range. I think it's really useful, same as IS for night shots. Could avoid tripod in some cases.

CanonRumors reveal a 16-50 f4 L H-IS to come. Interresting !?

The need of

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10588526
Sigma 8-16mm
Sigma 10-20mm 4~5.6
Sigma 10-20mm 3.5
Canon 10-22mm
Tamron 10-24mm
Tokina 11-16mm

What would you buy (or did you), and why? I understand money drives some of the options here, but lets say for the sake of this exercise you can get anything on the list (used, rebates, whatever).

You are missing Tokina 12-24.

I've been really happy with the Tokina 11-16. It's served me very well, but if you're realistic, the Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22 would have too, they are all good.
I did get some special shots out of it that I wouldn't have been able to make at f/4 and/or with a lens that's not as sharp wide open.

I bougth the Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 and sold it soon after because the quality of my particular copy was poor - soft down one side and generally very soft anyway even when stopped down. If I could choose any UWA for crop it would be either the Canon or Tokina 11-16, and if I buy an UWA for my camera again it will be either of these two, unless I get a verified "good" copy of the Sigma.

After doing a little research and reading reviews, it was a toss up between the Tokina 11-16 and the Canon 10-22. Went with the Canon for slightly better range, and keeping the same brand as my camera. I don't think you could go wrong with either.

I loved the Tokina, and kind of want to get one as a 16mm prime on my 5d.

gkanetkar wrote in post #10589092
You are missing Tokina 12-24.

not really.

no offense to tokina on that lens, or the siggy 12-24mm (that covers FF as well) but 12mm just doesn't cut it for me. 11-16mm is a compromise already because it gets you 2.8 but at the cost of width and range...

TweakMDS wrote in post #10589115
I did get some special shots out of it that I wouldn't have been able to make at f/4 and/or with a lens that's not as sharp wide open.

yeah, that's the thing. For me personally, the work I do with this lens is always stopped down and on legs. Advantage Canon. But I also have a 2.5 y/o son who I like to shoot with my UWA around the house at times, and for those times the speed is nice (and sharpness wide open, how's the canon wide open?)... But that's for fun only, and about half of these types of shots were done with my siggy 12-24mm anyway which is slower and probably worse in terms of sharpness wide open...

I also had the 17-40 on my 5D as my UWA over a 16-35mm for size weight and price. In this case the canon is WIDER so I'm considering it a similar lens/choice...

occytron wrote in post #10589335
I loved the Tokina, and kind of want to get one as a 16mm prime on my 5d.

Hrm, how's the 10-22 do on FF? I know it's EF-S but that's a very good point as I might use my tokina on FF from time to time..... Forgot about that...

I have the 11-16mm and am very happy with it. I like it quite a bit more than the Canon 10-22 in terms of feel.
The other I would consider if I was buying again would be the sigma 8-16mm simply because of the range.

I bought the Sigma 8-16mm lens since it is the widest zoom lens available and I have been totally satisified with Sigmas offerings so far.. When you have to be aware of your own feet or the tripod legs getting in the picture inadvertantly, that is one wide angle lens. I was not wanting a fisheye lens due to the extreme distortion and this lens has minimal distortion for such a wide angle lens.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10589501
Hrm, how's the 10-22 do on FF? I know it's EF-S but that's a very good point as I might use my tokina on FF from time to time..... Forgot about that...

Not sure, I assume it would vignette like a mofo till about 15-16... that and the 10-22 is almost $200 more than the Tokina.

ImRaptor wrote in post #10589569
I have the 11-16mm and am very happy with it. I like it quite a bit more than the Canon 10-22 in terms of feel.
The other I would consider if I was buying again would be the sigma 8-16mm simply because of the range.

yeah, having come from a 12-24mm on FF that's my other option, I own the 11-16mm now, but I'm considering the 10-22 for less distortion and the added width (hoping it's close enough to the 8-16 to keep me from owning TWO UWA lenses).

Joe Ravenstein wrote in post #10589643
I bought the Sigma 8-16mm lens since it is the widest zoom lens available and I have been totally satisified with Sigmas offerings so far.. When you have to be aware of your own feet or the tripod legs getting in the picture inadvertantly, that is one wide angle lens. I was not wanting a fisheye lens due to the extreme distortion and this lens has minimal distortion for such a wide angle lens.

yep, I've had a 15mm FE on FF before and switched to the 12-24mm instead (and had it before as well). I like both, but the 12-24mm got used so much more and I couldn't rationalize both. The 8-16mm is actually BETTER than the 12-24mm on FF....

but I got sick of having filter issues with the 12-24mm all the time. I'd love to have 16mm but to be able to use filters? It's the happy medium. Wider than the 11-16mm, faster than the 8-16mm, can take filters easily...

occytron wrote in post #10589647
Not sure, I assume it would vignette like a mofo till about 15-16... that and the 10-22 is almost $200 more than the Tokina.

Sam did that test with it on his 1Dii. Worked well at 12mm there, so I'd bet somewhere in that 15/16 range is right. That could be interesting as well....

as for price, used to used they're basically the same price. You can't get 11-16s new right now so their used prices is high while the 10-22's used price is no more than $50 higher.