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

No 12-24? I have a little long story but I will tell it.

I have shot with a friend's 11-16 and I really enjoyed it. Nice and sharp. Fun to shoot with. Now when I started shopping it was that or nothing. Well when I start looking at the lens deeper and borrowed it again to do some test I started to be swayed away. The f/2.8 is really nice and fast. However there isn't really bokeh performance there. Also with the UWA I don't have any shots @ f/2.8 because it is not as sharp wide open. Now when you consider this with the pricing the 12-24 becomes a deal. f/4 isn't exactly slow and when inside I have flashes and outside I have lighting setup or I shoot during the day.

I would consider it. Wonderful lens. One is in the mail for me. You save 50% off the 11-16 which is nice. Got a CF tripod with the savings! For that I will just back up just a little bit. If I can't I will work with what I have. I will get a test shot with friends 11-16 to actually see the difference of what you see.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10589713
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.

That's good to know. Especially the used prices, my widest being 24 really isn't cutting it. I need to go WIDER!

If I were to get a UWA on crop, I'd go for the Sigma 8-16 - given that, most of the time, I'd be shooting stopped down (for greater DOF for landscapes) the maximum aperture isn't a concern and, by all accounts, it is a very sharp lens. When I want wide, I want wide! 17mm and up would already be covered by a 17-55.

Just wondering why there are so many votes for the Canon - blind voting for the Canon lens, or is there evidence to support it?

I bought the canon 10-22 for the following reasons:

- USM focusing is fast, quiet, and accurate
- the 10mm on the wide end 10% wider than 11mm
- liked the larger range on the telephoto end
- very solid build construction
- good review on TDP
- didn't need f/2.8

Example photos here:
http://www.flickr.com …7/sets/72157624​347550759/

scubthebub wrote in post #10589830
I bought the canon 10-22 for the following reasons:

- USM focusing is fast, quiet, and accurate
- the 10mm on the wide end 10% wider than 11mm
- liked the larger range on the telephoto end
- very solid build construction
- good review on TDP
- didn't need f/2.8

Example photos here:
http://www.flickr.com …7/sets/72157624​347550759/

I'm guessing the Siggy 8-16 wasn't out then?

So, basically, for the extra 1mm over the Tokina 11-16 (which has equally good construction and possibly better IQ, but less width, and is much cheaper)? Fair enough - guess it's like the premium for the 16-35L vs the 17-40L.

Shadowblade wrote in post #10589826
If I were to get a UWA on crop, I'd go for the Sigma 8-16 - given that, most of the time, I'd be shooting stopped down (for greater DOF for landscapes) the maximum aperture isn't a concern and, by all accounts, it is a very sharp lens. When I want wide, I want wide! 17mm and up would already be covered by a 17-55.

Just wondering why there are so many votes for the Canon - blind voting for the Canon lens, or is there evidence to support it?

Not that I have ever seen. Apparently the 3rd party lenses do a better job and many feel better and they appear/feel like they are built better. More robust.

Shadowblade wrote in post #10589846
I'm guessing the Siggy 8-16 wasn't out then?

So, basically, for the extra 1mm over the Tokina 11-16 (which has equally good construction and possibly better IQ, but less width, and is much cheaper)? Fair enough - guess it's like the premium for the 16-35L vs the 17-40L.

the 11-16 or 8-16 leaves me with a larger gap then I wanted in my range with my next lens starting at 28mm. I'm also finding that I rarely need more than 10mm, and even then the images can get pretty distorted which I try to avoid. I would actually probably get the 17-40 because the range is very similar and the 1mm extra in this case is a lot of extra cash.

This was actually a hard decision because every lens has it's own unique strong point (price, aperture, range, build quality, widest mm, narrowest mm). But in the end I'm happy with -my- choice, it is a great lens.

Shadowblade wrote in post #10589826
If I were to get a UWA on crop, I'd go for the Sigma 8-16 - given that, most of the time, I'd be shooting stopped down (for greater DOF for landscapes) the maximum aperture isn't a concern and, by all accounts, it is a very sharp lens.

you realize filters become very expensive and tricky with that lens though right? yes it's the widest just as it's 12-24mm brother is, but you need to use cokin X-pro filters on it which are NOT cheap and NOT neutral. They're also very expensive and your options are very limited....

http://gear.benjacobse​nphoto.com …s-that-cant-take-filters/

if you're serious enough to be using a tripod for landscapes you should be serious enough to have filters as well, the 8-16mm w/ X-pros is a ~$1k+ "investment"....

scubthebub wrote in post #10590083
the 11-16 or 8-16 leaves me with a larger gap then I wanted in my range with my next lens starting at 28mm. I'm also finding that I rarely need more than 10mm, and even then the images can get pretty distorted which I try to avoid. I would actually probably get the 17-40 because the range is very similar and the 1mm extra in this case is a lot of extra cash.

well, since you're considering the 17-40mm on crop, it's very clear you're a canon guy then right? No offense, but the non FF specific lenses are much better mid range zooms than the 17-40 on FF. The 17-40mm is for a 5D what the 10-22 is for a cropper.

Nothing better then Tokina 11-16. Having owned one, I didn't want to sell it when moving to FF. It's an excellent lens with great IQ, sharpness, and build quality. Much better than 10-22 in my opinion.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10590155
you realize filters become very expensive and tricky with that lens though right? yes it's the widest just as it's 12-24mm brother is, but you need to use cokin X-pro filters on it which are NOT cheap and NOT neutral. They're also very expensive and your options are very limited....

http://gear.benjacobse​nphoto.com …s-that-cant-take-filters/

if you're serious enough to be using a tripod for landscapes you should be serious enough to have filters as well, the 8-16mm w/ X-pros is a ~$1k+ "investment"....

Obviously it wouldn't be my only UWA on a crop - ideally, I'd want both the 8-16 and the 11-16 (for occasional DOF control or to use with filters). But, given a choice of one or the other, I'd take the 8-16 - filters-wise, CPLs are of limited use with UWAs due to uneven polarisation and GNDs can, in a pinch, be substituted with HDR or blended images. That leaves solid NDs - fortunately, I do most landscape photography around dusk or dawn, or in adverse weather conditions, while waterfalls, etc. tend to be in shaded areas anyway. With a combination of small aperture and low ISO, under such conditions, you can normally slow the shutter speed enough to blur the water. I like my wides *wide*!

aboss3 wrote in post #10590204
Nothing better then Tokina 11-16. Having owned one, I didn't want to sell it when moving to FF. It's an excellent lens with great IQ, sharpness, and build quality. Much better than 10-22 in my opinion.

did you also own a 10-22?

Shadowblade wrote in post #10590256
Obviously it wouldn't be my only UWA on a crop - ideally, I'd want both the 8-16 and the 11-16 (for occasional DOF control or to use with filters). But, given a choice of one or the other, I'd take the 8-16 - filters-wise, CPLs are of limited use with UWAs due to uneven polarisation and GNDs can, in a pinch, be substituted with HDR or blended images. That leaves solid NDs - fortunately, I do most landscape photography around dusk or dawn, or in adverse weather conditions, while waterfalls, etc. tend to be in shaded areas anyway. With a combination of small aperture and low ISO, under such conditions, you can normally slow the shutter speed enough to blur the water. I like my wides *wide*!

yes, the 8-16mm AND 11-16mm is basically my other option. If I go 10-22, I'll only do it as a one UWA zoom setup.

as for filters/HDRs, I MUCH prefer the look of filters (GNDs) over HDRs any day of the week. I'm not against HDRs, but a GND image almost always looks better and is less work. And that's the catch, do you deal with making filters work on a super wide (8mm on crop or 12mm on FF) or do you go less wide or do you go HDR? None of these are easy or cheap.

I WAS doing the wide WITH filters using X-pros, but now I'm liking filters natively and I'm hoping 10mm is wide enough.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10590403
did you also own a 10-22?


yes, the 8-16mm AND 11-16mm is basically my other option. If I go 10-22, I'll only do it as a one UWA zoom setup.

as for filters/HDRs, I MUCH prefer the look of filters (GNDs) over HDRs any day of the week. I'm not against HDRs, but a GND image almost always looks better and is less work. And that's the catch, do you deal with making filters work on a super wide (8mm on crop or 12mm on FF) or do you go less wide or do you go HDR? None of these are easy or cheap.

I WAS doing the wide WITH filters using X-pros, but now I'm liking filters natively and I'm hoping 10mm is wide enough.

With an uneven horizon (almost any shot in the mountains or city, for example) GNDs aren't really an option anyway... HDRs and blended images are just as realistic-looking as GNDs if you do them correctly - no overblown local contrast enhancement, for example. For my ultra-ultra wide images, I'd rather be able to go wider and go through the HDR/image blending process rather than lose the width, or carry around an extra set of (inferior-quality) filters just for those shots.

yeah, well we live in similar landscapes I'd imagine, no? And I use filters ALL THE TIME. I use HDRs (the times filters don't work) maybe once a month. To each their own of course, but I MUCH prefer the filter route. I'd rather have the 8-16mm with cokin filters than do HDRs though personally. Yes there are times filters simply won't work, but there are lots of times they will and do.

Basically, I disagree with anyone who's hard set against one or the other. If you use both, where appropriate, fair enough.

I've recently got myself a tokina 11-16

Things that I liked:
- EF mount, if I would have a FF or APS-H body it would fit without modification
- very sharp if not the sharpest of all (as far as I could tell in the various reviews that I looked at)
- build quality
- i wanted to try something that didnt have canon written on it for a change

I would have taken
- the sigma 8-16 if it could mount filters, i just got myself a set of 7 LEE filters that I want to play around it with
- the canon if the iq would be significantly better (not saying its worse) and had no EF-S mount

I've used both the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6. I hired the canon and then bought the sigma. The canon was very good and a bit better but the difference between the the two was so small i couldn't justify the extra spend, it really was minimal IQ wise and when printed you would really struggle to tell them apart.