Is there a better alternative than the Canon 10-22mm?

LowriderS10 wrote in post #11796315
Umm...zoom in your lens to 12mm to find out

..looks pretty much the same, I mean all I would have to do is step a few backwards and get the same pictures as the 10mm.

Leonid Photography wrote in post #11796467
sigma 10-20mm

I'm looking at the Sigma 10-20mm vs the Tokina 12-24 right now..hard decisions.

Mark-B wrote in post #11795173
I think the Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6 is the only option under $500. At least as good as the Canon in my opinion.

+1 The Sigma 10-20 is excellent.

A lot of these wide angles are really good and you can't go wrong with them. But they all do have their subtle differences. I see too much difference between the 11-16 and my 10-22, so I feel that I need both. The 10-22 is killer for outdoor shooting, with ridiculous flare resistance. It's strength is also it's MFD, allowing you to get some really interesting ultrawide closeup perspectives. And the difference between 10mm and 11 is significant. On the contrary, the Tokina is my killer indoor lens. The speed is awesome for low light. It doesn't fare quite as well in the sun as the Canon. It also has a much longer MFD which makes a huge difference on the closeup perspectives compared to the canon. One of my favourite ways to shoot the 10-22 is to shoot at 10mm and put something right up at MFD. It gives a very unique look.

Your use of UWA might be few and far between because you may be using it only to fit a lot of stuff into your shot... pulling it out only when you cannot back up any further. That's totally the wrong approach to UWA. The more ideal way to shoot ANYTHING is to choose the perspective you want for a shot, and then pull out the lens that will give you that perspective.

Vixen89 wrote in post #11796510
..looks pretty much the same, I mean all I would have to do is step a few backwards and get the same pictures as the 10mm.

Eek...ummm...not really, but okay

I had the Sigma 8-16 and it was a very fun lens as it is very sharp.

yeahhh...I see that now so ..

Debating over the Sigma 10-22 and quite possibly the Tokina 11-16 but I hear there's CA with Tokina?

No, there is flare with the Tokina.

Take a look at some of the photos of the 8-16 here...https://photography-on-the.net …p?t=870989&high​light=8-16

have you seen this comparison:
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …s_canon_tamron_​tokina.htm

i can't tell if you're trying to get a better lens, even though you don't use the lens...or trying to switch it up for a cheaper lens that'll still give you close to as good of image quality so you can free up some money from something you rarely use...

switching to the tokina, or 8-16mm sigma won't really do that...although i think the 8-16mm is probably a different type of lens entirely...if you want a good lens without shelling out more/the same money...go with the sigma 10-20mm...there's a pretty big difference between 10-12mm...and you can't always step back...

DreDaze wrote in post #11796857
have you seen this comparison:
http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …s_canon_tamron_​tokina.htm

i can't tell if you're trying to get a better lens, even though you don't use the lens...or trying to switch it up for a cheaper lens that'll still give you close to as good of image quality so you can free up some money from something you rarely use...

switching to the tokina, or 8-16mm sigma won't really do that...although i think the 8-16mm is probably a different type of lens entirely...if you want a good lens without shelling out more/the same money...go with the sigma 10-20mm...there's a pretty big difference between 10-12mm...and you can't always step back...

ahhhh this helped out a lot! I was avoiding the 8-16mm even though it's like it's own monster..I was leaning towards the Sigma 10-12mm now since it's almost the same but at the fraction of the cost. You don't wanna know what goes on in my head, I'm female and complex. LOL

picturecrazy wrote in post #11796610
A lot of these wide angles are really good and you can't go wrong with them. But they all do have their subtle differences. I see too much difference between the 11-16 and my 10-22, so I feel that I need both.

Wow! I thought I was the only person fussy enough to own, and keep, both of these lenses for different uses. They're both a lot better than the Sigma 10-20 that I tried (different focus on left and right sides).

Vixen89 wrote in post #11795208
I'm not having any issues with the 10-22mm...
I just haven't touched this lens ever since I bought it ...

Maybe a wide-angle just isn't your thing.

hollis_f wrote in post #11800274
Wow! I thought I was the only person fussy enough to own, and keep, both of these lenses for different uses. They're both a lot better than the Sigma 10-20 that I tried (different focus on left and right sides).

whoa, crazy! I thought my Sigma 10-20 was the only one that did that (the different focus on the L/R)...for some odd reason, it was only noticeable is some shots (those with shallow DOF, maybe?) and I swear it wasn't like that in the beginning (I've never dropped it or bumped it or anything)...either way, I came back from a trip of a lifetime only to find out that with a bunch of my pictures the left was sharp and the right was blurry...I wasn't too impressed.

Try the Sigma 8-16.

Mark-B wrote in post #11795173
I think the Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6 is the only option under $500. At least as good as the Canon in my opinion.

It cannot be as good as Canon because it is a stop narrower, which is a huge difference. For some it might be unimportant for some deal breaker.