Having a great time with my 40D. Recently gained a 16-35 2.8 ( first version ) on loan and have had a few days to play around with it. I find that wide open it perfroms fairly well and I enjoy the range but when compared to my recently acquired Tokina 19-35 ( plastic fantastic ) I am not noticing much of a difference other than the wider view.
One thing I know for sure is that I feel the need to go wider but the question remains what is the best route for getting as wide as possible for landscapes but still keeping distortion minimal.
Canon 14mm - I hear is soft and over priced for what you get
Sigma and Tamron have a 14 mm prime, are these any good?
Some will suggest the Canon 10-22, sigma and Tokina Ultra wide zooms but do these even come close to the ultra wide primes?
I really wish Sigma or another third party company would release a 10mm or 12 mm prime for 1.6 bodies.
Canon 10-22. When I had a 20D the 10-22 was one of my favorite lenses. Very sharp even in the corners. Not a prime, but you would have to go with a fish to get that wide.
Other than the Canon 14L II and other alternative lenses (not canon mount) nearly everyone will tell you the 10-22 is best.
I dont own one but I know it is incredibly highly thought of and is very sharp (I was considering getting one but went for a 17-40) 10mm is one hell of a lot wider than 14 by the way.
If you want to minimize distortion, the Sigma 12-24 is unbelievable (works also for FF). I once tested it and was not able to find any distortion at 12mm! However, it is somewhat soft in the corners, which is why I never bought it.
The other route is to use DxO Pro or another SW that can correct distortion. For supported camera-lens pairs DxO does it quite automatically. Even fisheyes are defished and produce a perfect result without any distortion whatsoever. But you need to check for support for your lens and camera.
Distortion is no longer the most critical problem for a lens, because of the availability of good postprocessing.
I am very happy with my Canon 15f2.8 fisheye. It is fast and sharp - and wide. Most of my use is for cases where no defishing is required, i.e. for photographing the sky (day and night). A fisheye actually produces the least amount of distortion when photographing round objects.
I owned the sigma 10-20 and it was an awesome performer and less expensive than all the others menioned so far. This lens is largely over-looked but in my opinion it exceeds the picture quality of most the others in this range.
The Tokina AT-X 124 PRO DX AF 12-24mm f/4 should also be on the top of your list of super wides to look at. I would not be without mine
There are some quite favorable web reviews including some from this site
First choice - Sigma 12-24
Second choice - Sigma 10-20
Third choice - Canon 10-22
At least that was true for the copies of each I have had. No question the 12-24 has the least distortion, if that's a criterion for you, and it was for me.
My copy of the Tokina 12-24 has no distortion and gorgeous color, contrast, and sharpness. It's certainly worth a serious look, and there are a lot of very happy Tokina owners.
I have a sigma 12-24 for my 30D. I have no hesitation recommending it - optical performance, build quality and value all good. Barrel distortion is almost nil with this. Only disadvantage, it has a very curved front element which means filters can only fit on the hood - could be an issue if filters are important to you.
I have the Sigma 10-20 and 12-24. The 12-24 has less distortion, but both are good lenses. The 10-20 is much wider and can be a lot of fun. It is amazing how much difference there is on the wide end between 2mm. I would probably keep the 12-24 if I had to choose between the two. I do a good bit of indoor architectural shots with it.
The only two that go down to 10mm are the Sigma 10-20 and Canon 10-22. Both are excellent if you get good copies. The Sigma is supposed to have strange distortion at 10mm, but I've never noticed it. However, it's supposed to handle CA very well. Both have USM/HSM. The Canon has the aperture advantage, but costs more. I like the build of the Sigma better - it's heavier and feels sturdier, yet is smaller in size. If you only use a crop body I see no reason to get a full-frame wide prime, as the crop-only zooms go wider and image quality is very good.
I've got the sigma 10-20 but have played with the canon 10-20. No real different in image quality, both are equally well built, fast focusing, etc. I've found the sigma at 10mm to have very little distortion other than what the 10mm is always going to give you. CR hasn't been much of an issue either. The lens DID start out very soft on the left but a visit (1 week, round trip) to sigma corrected it and now it's quite sharp. I think you'll have fun with either of 'em.
One noticable difference (besides a few hundred dollars) between the Sigma and the Canon is that the Canon handles flare quite a bit better than the Sigma. Besides that it seems that as long as the Sigma is a "good copy" (either out of the box or after a visit back to sigma) they are very closely matched optically.
Someone did a half way decent flare comparison here:
Tamron's 11-18mm was a flop. I'd be willing to bet they got it right this time. They don't put SP on just any lens.
From the press release:
(1) Employment of Special Optical Glass Materials Provides High Performance The new zoom lens uses an HID glass element and a pair of LD glass elements to minimize on-axis and lateral chromatic aberrations that are the greatest hindrance to high optical quality. To further achieve outstanding optical quality, the lens uses a high quality, glass-molded aspherical element and three hybrid aspherical elements to thoroughly compensate for spherical and comatic aberrations and distortion.
* HID – High Index/High Dispersion optical glass
* LD – Low Dispersion optical glass
(2) Optical Design Optimizes the Angles of Incidences of Light Rays Reaching the Imager The ultra wide zoom lens uses a new optical system designed to confine the changing angles of incidences of light rays reaching the imager within a certain scope over the entire image field from the center to the periphery, by considering the effects of variances due to zooming.
(3) Enhanced Peripheral Illumination Peripheral light fall-off is minimized so that images are high quality from the center to the periphery.
(4) Outstanding Resolution As an SP Di II class lens, it provides high optical quality in terms of resolution, contrast and flatness of image field.
(5) Internal Surface Coating Reduces Ghosting and Flare The lens uses a newly developed multiple coating and internal surface coating, (i.e., multiple-layer coatings on cemented surfaces of plural lenses) to reduce the image degradation caused by the reflection of light rays entering from the lens front and affected by the imager.
I have the Sigma 10-20 and it was awesome on my 30D. I now have a 1DMKII and its still awesome. It works great from 11-20mm cant do that with the Canon or tokina
