Hey Guys... I decided to buy myself a gift after thanksgiving [ black friday sales ]... I'm looking for a wide angle lens ranging from 10mm to 40mm... just want to know what do you recommend for greatest IQ... it will be for a canon 1.6 crop camera...
Is Canon EFS 10-22mm is really way up there? that no third party makers can't compete with it?
Yup!
Some prefer the Sigma 12-24 because it can be used on a FF if you change format later, but the 10-22 has optical construction properties like an L lens (similar to the 16-35 designed for FF)
AJSJones wrote:
Yup!
Some prefer the Sigma 12-24 because it can be used on a FF if you change format later, but the 10-22 has optical construction properties like an L lens (similar to the 16-35 designed for FF)
I adore my Sigma 10-20 and haven't used any of the others but...
While I was researching the subject the general consensus seemed to be that the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24 offered 90% of the performance for 75% of the price. The Sigma 12-24 and Tokina 11-16 are supposed to be even better but are a similar price to the Canon.
The constant f2.8 of the Tokina might be handy for some folk while the FF capability of the Sigma might be better if you're thinking of grabbing a 5D!
I did a comprehensive test to see which wide angle would be best for my 40D/30D; I was in the same boat as yourself. I came to the conclusion that the Canon was probably slightly less of a performer than cheaper alternatives. I have not bought or used one for long periods of time but I did use someone's on the top of the Eiffel Tower once who was a tourist as I was.
Each wide angle has its specialities.
The Tokina 12-24 is a generally very good lens although it is not quiet and it is not as wide as you may require - the difference between 10mm and 12mm is as big as people suggest.
The Tokina 11-16 is flawed by a limited range and noisy again but has supposedly outstanding image quality and is fast F2.8.
The Canon 10-22 is the best compromise - it is quiet, relatively fast and is designed for EF-S. At the same time it can't ever physically fit anything other than the xxD or xxxD or xxxxD series. Is this of concern to you? probably not. However I don't think sharpness is ever as good what ever copy you receive as other alternatives. This lens is built for people who buy for CANON
The Sigma 12-24 would seem a bit of a marketing exercise to me. It is a stunningly wide lens and it acheives the impossible BUT it does so with flaws. No filters, lesser performance compared to others, different lens cap system than usual, fall off in the corners. It has the advantage of being Full Frame though which may appeal to you looking into the future - I always feel one should buy their lenses for NOW and not for the future. Price is also of consideration as it is expensive at 1.5x the price of its digital counterpart (see below).
The Sigma 10-20 is my choice. It may be slow and because it is a Sigma it is therefore doomed but I have been more than pleased with mine. The image quality is on par with my 17-55 IS, especially for sharpness!!, and my 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM. The HSM is fantastic and accurate. Light fall off is a slight problem but ACR will fix that, or DPP now with its perpherical illumination or what ever. I think this is a great buy. Oh and by the way it has a three year warranty so you don't have to worry at all about your beloved wide angles - I worry about my Canon stuff sometimes and the cost of repair if it went wrong.
The cheapest, near enough the quietest, one of the sharpest, one of the best built, nice long warranty. £300, NO QUESTION !!!!
The Siggy 10-20 would be my choice all over again.
I focused on the front chair. If I had focused on the back chair I would be seriously worried.
So are you trying to ask if the DoF allowed me to focus on the back chair and still get the front chair in focus? No I wouldn't have.
The reason I chose F11 is because I feel in low light this lens, although helped by the AF illuminator on the 580EX II will not focus accurately, and nor will any other. With a 10mm lens you are going to get pretty good DoF whatever settings you choose. F11 gives the best light fall off, best sharpness (although with F4 there is little decrease in sharpness), and the DoF means you guarentee your shot is in focus.
I seriously think the Sigma 10-20 is your perfect lens.
Fred Lindsey wrote:
I did a comprehensive test to see which wide angle would be best for my 40D/30D; I was in the same boat as yourself. I came to the conclusion that the Canon was probably slightly less of a performer than cheaper alternatives...
Can you tell us more about the nature of your "test?" Your results are contrary to those of many tests and reviews...
To the OP: If you are certain that you want to cover the ultra wide angle (UWA) range, the EFS 10-22 is more or less the standard, though some of the alternatives are also popular.
If you are looking for the longer end of this range - and are willing to sacrifice the widest end - you have some alternatives to consider. For example, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a very fine Canon lens that has a lot to offer. If you think you will switch to full frame soon, you could also look at the EF 16-35 f/2.8 or the 17-40mm f/4 L lenses. (The choice depends a lot on what types of photography you will do.)
danmitchell wrote:
Can you tell us more about the nature of your "test?" Your results are contrary to those of many tests and reviews...
To the OP: If you are certain that you want to cover the ultra wide angle (UWA) range, the EFS 10-22 is more or less the standard, though some of the alternatives are also popular.
If you are looking for the longer end of this range - and are willing to sacrifice the widest end - you have some alternatives to consider. For example, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a very fine Canon lens that has a lot to offer. If you think you will switch to full frame soon, you could also look at the EF 16-35 f/2.8 or the 17-40mm f/4 L lenses. (The choice depends a lot on what types of photography you will do.)
I basically looked at many sample images that were available from many of the popular review sites - typed in each lens into google and spent hours looking at which ones were best.
If someone wants to stay Canon then the Canon is obviously the one for them however I think going for different makes offer better options in this park. Sigma were the ones to make the first proper wide angles and they are still, in my opinion pretty much top of their game.
Absolutely - if the OP doesn't mind sacrificing the wide end the 17-55 is a stunning lens. I don't care that it doesn't have the red ring, mine seems well built and performs outstandingly. The 16-35mm Mk II is supposed to have superlative sharpness and general IQ and the 17-40 is quite similar although not quite as good and a stop slower once again according to looking at sample images.
Is it even possible to get a wide angle with a crop sensor without going fisheye?
I just ordered a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye. After seeing all the image samples, I decided those are what wide angle shots supposed to look like.
I think while crop sensor might get an extra focal length benefit at the telephoto end, it's really at a disadvantage when it comes to wide angle, which is why I chose a fisheye.
The photo would be distorted but I think it's quicker to de-fish it than to take and stitch 2+ photos.
Fred Lindsey wrote:
The cheapest, near enough the quietest, one of the sharpest, one of the best built, nice long warranty. £300, NO QUESTION !!!!
The Siggy 10-20 would be my choice all over again.
I've also got the Sigma, and also compared a few before buying, and read the reviews, none of which said "the Canon kills the Sigma" and a few of which said "the Sigma is a better lens".
I might be seduced by the constant 2.8 if I was doing it again now, but the Sigma is a terrific lens.
n0b0 wrote:
Is it even possible to get a wide angle with a crop sensor without going fisheye?
I just ordered a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye. After seeing all the image samples, I decided those are what wide angle shots supposed to look like.
I think while crop sensor might get an extra focal length benefit at the telephoto end, it's really at a disadvantage when it comes to wide angle, which is why I chose a fisheye.
The photo would be distorted but I think it's quicker to de-fish it than to take and stitch 2+ photos.
One can still get just as wide on crop as full frame. With a 10mm lens on crop it is equivalent to the widest OEM lens on full frame ,16mm. The ante of view should be the same just the effective depth of field would be increased.
I wouldn't suggest a fisheye for anything but special use myself
Some sample pics from my Canon 10-22mm lens which I've been generally pleased with. Ditto what others have said that there is a BIG difference between 10 and 12 ... so keep that in mind if you want ultra-wide.
Fred Lindsey wrote:
I wouldn't suggest a fisheye for anything but special use myself
Oh I don't know mate. I had a look at the Tokina 10-17mm FlickR group and they look pretty normal to me. There's only a slight distortion at 17mm, I'd say comparable to your example above if slightly more distorted.
The angle of view at 17mm is around 100º. What's the Sigma angle of view at 10mm?
Yes it is 102-64 but to be honest it requires no PP and it has incredible IQ. I believe that for the OP a fisheye would not be practical. It would appear as though he wishes for as good as possible general use lens.
Your fisheye might have more angle of view but in reality I think undistorted pictures are easier to sell in the long run. Fisheyes are fun but not for everyday use in my opinion.
Fred Lindsey wrote:
Is that 100 degrees on a Canon or Nikon crop?
Yes it is 102-64 but to be honest it requires no PP and it has incredible IQ. I believe that for the OP a fisheye would not be practical. It would appear as though he wishes for as good as possible general use lens.
Your fisheye might have more angle of view but in reality I think undistorted pictures are easier to sell in the long run. Fisheyes are fun but not for everyday use in my opinion.
I'm not sure if it's for Canon or Nikon but I think it shouldn't be too much different.
Well I don't presume to tell the OP what may or may not be practical for him, just letting him know of another option.
Funny enough, Tokina website has a direct comparison between their lens and your particular Sigma. As you can see, there still is some converging verticals in the Sigma samples as well as your own sample. There's just no getting away from distortion with ultra/wide/fisheye.
I'll get my Tokina by the end of next week at the latest. If you like, I can show you some of my own sample shots then. I really do think at 17mm, the Tokina will give you similar result to the Sigma at 10mm.
