Help me buy a UWA lens for my T2i

[mrSHEiK124]

I'm considering buying one of three lenses:

Tokina 11mm - 16mm F/2.8 ATX Pro DX
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD

Mostly going to be shooting tight urban shots outdoors. I've read and re-read everything I can find about these lenses online, and from what I can gather, they compare rather nicely. I want to get the Tokina for 2.8 all the way through (the missing range on the long end doesn't bother me nearly as much as that 1 mm off the wide end), but I can only find it in stock online at one vendor...for $799. The Sigma can be had for $650 but flare/focus seem to be an issue with the older variable aperture version, and the Canon can be had for around the same price after BCB. Any suggestions?

 

[996GT2]

Sigma 8-16mm HSM

 

[magomago]

This may sound weird and counter intuitive to agonizing over reviews...but I'd probably make my choice based on (a) price (b) length.

Does 1mm @ the wide end matter to you (especially down there - I easily see the difference between 16 and 18mm when I'm shooting, so I'm guessing 10vs11 will potentially be just as exaggerated because its so much wider)?
Even if you wanted that 1mm, does the cost justify it? To some, no. To others, the cost , in the long run, is not that big of a deal, and the extra 100 or 150 is worth it (I would fall into that category) to get what you want in the first place.

The last thing I'd throw in, as a curve ball, is if any have serious pincushion issues. At WA, being perfectly rectilinear is going to potentially be an issue on zoom lenses. But to be fair, rectilinear tests usually are exaggerated by the lab setups and aren't as noticeable in actual use. I probably wouldn't pick 11mm over 10mm if rectilinearity is slightly worse, but i wouldn't have a problem with a slower lens if the faster lens was pincushion-ish (especially at the wide end where blur is easily masked and you don't need such a fast lens).

Those would probably be my three areas of focus. I don't know if I would put as much emphasis on the others unless I'm going to be doing lots of landscape shots (Although honestly these days I would probably favor stitching photos for landscape photos the way FBB does it) where sharpness is absolutely critical.

Of course...I don't know what the exact intent of the images are, and what the final display will be...but depending on the type of PP you plan to do (sounds like you are buying this for a specific purpose), it may simply be best just to save money. Remember, people will pay thousands more dollars for lenses that provide 20-30% more resolution - is it truly worth it? Keep that part in perspective~

Oh, and never forget indeed :thumbsup; - hopefully for all peoples for all time, and not focused on any select group of people while ignoring others~

 

[arkcom]

There's also a Tamron 10-24mm that's in the same class. Best price is just under $400 on ebay.

 

[Aharami]

Tokina 11-16. I used to have Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. The Tokina is much better, even with limited range

 

[ElFenix]

Sigma 8-16mm HSM

decent tests for that lens

almost makes me want to trade my original version 10-20 hsm

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

This may sound weird and counter intuitive to agonizing over reviews...but I'd probably make my choice based on (a) price (b) length.

Does 1mm @ the wide end matter to you (especially down there - I easily see the difference between 16 and 18mm when I'm shooting, so I'm guessing 10vs11 will potentially be just as exaggerated because its so much wider)?
Even if you wanted that 1mm, does the cost justify it? To some, no. To others, the cost , in the long run, is not that big of a deal, and the extra 100 or 150 is worth it (I would fall into that category) to get what you want in the first place.

The last thing I'd throw in, as a curve ball, is if any have serious pincushion issues. At WA, being perfectly rectilinear is going to potentially be an issue on zoom lenses. But to be fair, rectilinear tests usually are exaggerated by the lab setups and aren't as noticeable in actual use. I probably wouldn't pick 11mm over 10mm if rectilinearity is slightly worse, but i wouldn't have a problem with a slower lens if the faster lens was pincushion-ish (especially at the wide end where blur is easily masked and you don't need such a fast lens).

Those would probably be my three areas of focus. I don't know if I would put as much emphasis on the others unless I'm going to be doing lots of landscape shots (Although honestly these days I would probably favor stitching photos for landscape photos the way FBB does it) where sharpness is absolutely critical.

Of course...I don't know what the exact intent of the images are, and what the final display will be...but depending on the type of PP you plan to do (sounds like you are buying this for a specific purpose), it may simply be best just to save money. Remember, people will pay thousands more dollars for lenses that provide 20-30% more resolution - is it truly worth it? Keep that part in perspective~

Oh, and never forget indeed :thumbsup; - hopefully for all peoples for all time, and not focused on any select group of people while ignoring others~

10 - 11 is huge. 10% wider almost.

http://www.canon-20d.com/wide-angle-lens-compare.php

10mm is 16mm FF equivalent
11mm is 17.6mm FF equivalent.

I'd say there's a difference.

Here's an argument for the 10mm lenses. The idea was to go wide, so you really want to go wide. You should care for that extra 1mm because its hard to get that non fisheye look on a crop camera once you get into that range.

Moreover, UWAs don't really need shallow DOF and even f/2.8 you're not gonna get awesome bokeh or anything simply because you have a great deal of DOF with those focal lengths.

I'd also like to point out the Sigma 10-20 older version is pretty damn good too. The f/3.5 trades off some things (was it CA?) for the constant aperture. Plus it's pretty pricey. Yet it doesn't really beat the Tokina in terms of IQ.

Also by going all the way to 20mm or 22mm in the case of the Canon, you get some flexibility of doing shots without having to change your lenses.

Furthermore the at focal lengths of 10-20, you're less shutter limited than your typical walkaround making f/2.8 less useful.

With that said I have a Tokina 11-16. I'm still blown away by the pop, the images the sharpness, everything. I think I wowed more at this lens than my Canon 17-55 which costs way more. I felt like I had to complete my f/2.8 lineup.... although I think I would've been perfectly happy saving with a Sigma 10-20.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

10 - 11 is huge. 10% wider almost.

http://www.canon-20d.com/wide-angle-lens-compare.php

10mm is 16mm FF equivalent
11mm is 17.6mm FF equivalent.

I'd say there's a difference.

Here's an argument for the 10mm lenses. The idea was to go wide, so you really want to go wide. You should care for that extra 1mm because its hard to get that non fisheye look on a crop camera once you get into that range.

Moreover, UWAs don't really need shallow DOF and even f/2.8 you're not gonna get awesome bokeh or anything simply because you have a great deal of DOF with those focal lengths.

I'd also like to point out the Sigma 10-20 older version is pretty damn good too. The f/3.5 trades off some things (was it CA?) for the constant aperture. Plus it's pretty pricey. Yet it doesn't really beat the Tokina in terms of IQ.

Also by going all the way to 20mm or 22mm in the case of the Canon, you get some flexibility of doing shots without having to change your lenses.

Furthermore the at focal lengths of 10-20, you're less shutter limited than your typical walkaround making f/2.8 less useful.

With that said I have a Tokina 11-16. I'm still blown away by the pop, the images the sharpness, everything. I think I wowed more at this lens than my Canon 17-55 which costs way more. I felt like I had to complete my f/2.8 lineup.... although I think I would've been perfectly happy saving with a Sigma 10-20.

This might sound stupid, but if I end up going with one of the 10mm lenses it'll probably be the Canon - correcting distortion is stupidly easy either in Lightroom or in DPP.

I'm not really worried about AF performance, and I'm guessing the Canon is the clear winner here, but I'm thinking this is wide enough that MF shouldn't exactly be a pain either.

I guess the only question I have left is how do the Tokina and the Canon compare at the same focal length/aperture? I'd rather have more limited range in a better lens (isn't that why people buy primes?), but if it's a wash I'll probably end up with the Canon - I can't find the Tokina anywhere but here:
http://www.digitalrev.com/en/tokina-at-x-116-pro-dx-af-11-16mm-f2-dot-8-lens-2993.html?match_type=1 and I don't think I can send it back very easily if I get a dud copy.

 

[acx]

There's one seller on ebay by the name of "cameraland" that occassionally puts batches of the tokina 11-116mm lens for canon on sale for $590. The lens sell out almost instantly but if you are vigilant you might be able to pick one up.