Which UWA Crop

Cannon 10-22

Tokina 11-16

Okay which UWA to go with
Read and read and each day change my mind as I read another.
I need to hit button and stop reading reviews and get shooting.
Love my 17-55 2.8
Should I go for light and Tokina.
10-22 range no flare / CA.

Help me!!!!!

Thanks

MaureenPaul wrote in post #11821563
Cannon 10-22

Tokina 11-16

Okay which UWA to go with
Read and read and each day change my mind as I read another.
I need to hit button and stop reading reviews and get shooting.
Love my 17-55 2.8
Should I go for light and Tokina.
10-22 range no flare / CA.

Help me!!!!!

Thanks

Not only do I think the Tokina is a better lens, - it matches up perfectly focal length wise to your 17-55.

I had the 10-22, sold it and picked up the 17-40 for my 5D instead. I really miss the 10-22 on my 7D. It's a wonderful and very sharp lens. I vote 10-22 without hesitation.

I dont like changing lenses all the time, so I like having more range, the tokina doesn't do 10mm, and I don't need f2.8 on my UWA, so I went for the canon.

If you really need a fast UWA on 1.6X then the Tokina is about the only choice. It will give you close to the AOV and DOF of the EF 17-40 on a FF camera.

If you plan to be shooting stopped down most of the time, the 10-22 is IMO a better lens. I think flare performance is very important in an ultra wide and the 10-22 is also nice for the broader range including 1mm more on the wide end.

the Tokina is a bokeh monster at 11mm & f2.8

Go with the Tokina. I regret not buying this lens.

m.shalaby wrote in post #11822155
the Tokina is a bokeh monster at 11mm & f2.8

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not sure what the modifier 'monster' means in conjunction with the aesthetic appearance of the out of focus region.

I never looked at the blur region much when I had the 10-22 as f/5.6 at below 22mm on 1.6X tends to yield very large DOF. I'll kick on the metadata sorter in Lightroom and see what I find.

I do notice that the appearance of the blur region of my EF 16-36/2.8 II is quite busy when compared to the overlapping focal length range on the EF 24-70/2.8.

i am in the same dilemma for which to pick up next.. i think i am going with the tokina 11-16mm.

10-22 and stop reading reviews ....happy shooting.

Personally Im a Canon only kinda guy, so thats what I voted. But I will admit on paper that Tokina does look good. Though Ive never shot one or researched them before. But I have seen NOTHING but good results from the Canon 10-22mm, so I know thats a safe bet. I also agree with the previous posters who said that they didnt feel they needs f/2.8 on a UWA. I sold my 16-35 II for the same reason. Couldnt justify it over the 17-40L after years of owning it.

Oh, good! There have only been 4 threads about this today, I was wondering why not more??

anyways...Tokina.

ben_r_ wrote in post #11823147
Personally Im a Canon only kinda guy, so thats what I voted. But I will admit on paper that Tokina does look good. Though Ive never shot one or researched them before. But I have seen NOTHING but good results from the Canon 10-22mm, so I know thats a safe bet. I also agree with the previous posters who said that they didnt feel they needs f/2.8 on a UWA. I sold my 16-35 II for the same reason. Couldnt justify it over the 17-40L after years of owning it.

lol so you know nothing about the Tokina...it's far superior to the Canon.

As for shooting at 2.8...I have plenty of shots (I just went through my files from September until now, and average about 20%) that I shot wide open (f2.8 on my Tokina and f4 on my 17-40L)...which is why I'm selling my 17-40 to pick up a 16-35. It's all in your personal style.

Neither,
Sigma 8-16 all the way, replaced my Tokina 11-16 and never looked back.

I really want a look at the sigma 8-16mm, but not being able to use a filter system on it is a bit of a pain :/