I love my Canon 10-22. Don't bother with a hood, it's very flair resistant. I do keep a UV filter on it, and unlike many of my other lenses, I see no degradation in image quality from using it. Focus is spot on. At receptions, I shoot blind with this lens all the time.
I have used the Tokina 11-16 mm in the Pergamon museum in Berlin. The images of the Pergamon alter are just great. The room is quite wide since the alter must be 80-90 feet wide. However, the room is rather shallow, so the 11 mm setting really came in handy. The usual distortion at the extreme edge is present, but that level of detail captured is great.
But Canon 10mm are wide also. More even than Tokina. The only downgrade is the aperture. But im really not used to F2.8's, so i don't know what i'm i going to miss more, the F2.8 or the 22mm of Canon!
I do some indoor shooting on my travels, especially in churches, but not much.
rsrsrs wrote:
maybe its not ultra ulta wide.
and its a plastic cup,
but i truly recommend the tamron 19-35mm
which is realy perplexing cheap.
here on FM review side it is also ..., but better read yourself.
so its ulta in another way.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Reinhard Schneider
It's no upgrade over the kit 18-55 the OP already has. Good lens for the money (it's actually the Cosina 19-35 design also sold by Tokina, Vivitar and Phoenix among others) but not really a steller performer as an ultra-wide and as a normal zoom on a crop body it's crippled by its small range and large size (77mm filters)
Bearing in mind that ultra wide angle lenses like the above will invariably only be used at their widest angle 99.99% percent of the time its makes sense to get the one that gives the best performance at its widest FL.
If you look at the reviews of these lenses on photozone.de its clear that the best of the bunch by far is the Sigma.
It has the least distortion, the least CA, its one of the lowest for vignetting and its also the sharpest.
Thanks for sharing Steve. Have you had the chance ever to compare it to any Tokina? Because from the reviews i read scattered on the net they are the real rivals for the Canon.
Nov 29, 2008 at 06:14 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
No, I haven't had a chance to compare to either of the Tokina's. I know people seem to really like both of those lenses, however. Good luck with your search.
Alf Beharie wrote:
Bearing in mind that ultra wide angle lenses like the above will invariably only be used at their widest angle 99.99% percent of the time its makes sense to get the one that gives the best performance at its widest FL.
If you look at the reviews of these lenses on photozone.de its clear that the best of the bunch by far is the Sigma.
It has the least distortion, the least CA, its one of the lowest for vignetting and its also the sharpest.
I've been burned too many times by Sigma lenses to try yet another one. Keep in mind that any AF issues with Sigma lenses are likely to appear on Canon much more than another mount.
The 11-16mm is really tempting, but I've settled on the 12-24mm because of the lower price, better range and quite acceptable sharpness. With 40% off at eBay I can get it for under $300 shipped, a pretty good deal. I am a little leery of buying lenses off of eBay, but it's hard to pass up.
jvarszegi wrote:
The 11-16mm is really tempting, but I've settled on the 12-24mm because of the lower price, better range and quite acceptable sharpness.
I was thinking about that also. The Tokina 12-24 is still F4 all the way and the range is much better and practical.
Will i miss the F2.8? Probably but then i won't have to change lenses so often.
In the end I snapped up an 11-16 for $388 shipped. Hope it's everything it's cracked up to be! It wound up being $90 more than the 12-24 with the discounts. I really picked it for the f/2.8, not any extra optical quality. I think the photozone.de resolution figures must be low for the 12-24 based on the sample pictures, which look really excellent.
jvarszegi wrote:
In the end I snapped up an 11-16 for $388 shipped. Hope it's everything it's cracked up to be! It wound up being $90 more than the 12-24 with the discounts. I really picked it for the f/2.8, not any extra optical quality. I think the photozone.de resolution figures must be low for the 12-24 based on the sample pictures, which look really excellent.
When u get it place some photos!!
I still have a bit to decide myself. Let's see. But i ran into another problem today with the Tokina lenses. In Portugal the after sale assistance is quite complicated.
Construction-
Construction-
 SP</b></u><br />
Reviews:<br />
<b>Fredmiranda</b> - 8.30<br />
<b>SLRGear</b> - 8.33<br />
<b>Photozone</b> - IQ-<a href= "2026 © Pedro Pedras")
Construction-
Nov 29, 2008 at 03:29 PM