I'd like to see an overview of which Ultra Wide lenses the people here are using, and also why they opted for their choice.
Was there no other alternative available at that time, did you test alternatives but was there a clear difference in them, didn't you need 10mm, ...?
Personally I don't have one yet but I'm 70% convinced to go for the Sigma 10-20, because:
* I also want the 10-12mm range (that rules out the Tokina)
* the Canon 10-22 is so expensive (200euro's more in Europe)
* it includes the lens hood
* reviews I've read so far are good
* it doesn't vignette from 11mm onwards on a 1.3x crop dSLR
there is a cashback promotion in Europe that includes the 10-22. You get 100eur. back. After that the $$ difference between the sigma and the canon is minimum
Manuel10 wrote:
there is a cashback promotion in Europe that includes the 10-22. You get 100eur. back. After that the $$ difference between the sigma and the canon is minimum
I know, but still the price-gap is huge:
Canon 10-22 == 719 euro
lens hood == 33 euro
cashback == 100 euro
------------------------------------
Canon total == 652 euro (including hood and cashback)
Sigma 10-20 == 469 euro (includes the lens hood)
------------------------------------
Difference == 183 euro
183 euro is quite a lot of money (equals to 240 US$ at the moment)
I have the Sigma 12-24 simple beacause it was the widest thing available at that time. Unusable wide open but actually pretty good stopped down to f/11 which usually suits me fine on the rare occasions I need an ultrawide.
I have the Canon and I'm very pleased with it. Results at 10mm (where I use it 90% of the time) are usually superb, and it's a great fun lens to use. I wouldn't buy a third party lens but that's just me.
I have a Tamron 11-18 f 4,5-5,6 it cost mujch less than sigma and canon even if the range it's little less tham the other it's more than enough ( I have also a 14 mm sigma that is excellent but little heavy and bulky for travel purpose) very good price/quality.Sharp and little distortion and also it fit on the body of D60.
I am pleased with my Canon. I have had this lens for just over 6 months and have not experienced any problems/quality issues with it. The image quality is superb and the fun factor is high. I have only seen the Tokina in the camera store and wasn't impressed with it, loose feeling body. I have not seen the Tamron but would expect it to be a decent performer and worth consideration. My shutterbug buddy picked up the Sigma 12-24 and is not happy with the performance, soft images. I let him use my 10-22 on our last trip up the coast. .. Look for a Sigma on Ebay soon!
Lee
LeeG wrote:
I have only seen the Tokina in the camera store and wasn't impressed with it, loose feeling body. Lee
Wow. They must have had a pretty beat up copy on display. The Tokina's build is L quality in my opinion. I've been very impressed with mine. I can understand why some want the extra 2mm that the Canon and Sigma provide though. Myself, I can live without it.
gschmickle wrote:
Wow. They must have had a pretty beat up copy on display. The Tokina's build is L quality in my opinion. I've been very impressed with mine. I can understand why some want the extra 2mm that the Canon and Sigma provide though. Myself, I can live without it.
Guy
Guy,
It is possible the copy I used was abused by customers/clerks. It looked fresh out of the box but who knows if hit the counter top once or twice. I had heard the Tokina was built tight and went into the store to test it out before deciding which wide lens to purchase. After trying out the Tokina and then the Canon I decided on the Canon. The extra 2mm did make a difference in my decision. The only downside is the fact that it is an efs which is of concern if I decide to upgrade to FF in the future.
By the way, your photos on the nature forum are exellent
i am by nature a wide angle shooter , shooting landscapes and architecture. when i was looking for a wide angle lens i had a d60 at the time so i needed something very wide because of the d60's 1.6 crop factor. so i bought a canon 14mm, but still it wasnt wide enough and even on a 1.3 crop body im still wanting a wider field of view, ive considered buying the sigma 12-24mm but from the sample images and reviews im concerned that its not sharp enough. sharpness is a must for me. anyway i feel when i get my ff camera my 14mm will satisfy me(i would really like to see canon produce a ultra wide angle ff lens thats wider than the 14mm and that is sharp from corner to corner.)
gschmickle wrote:
Wow. They must have had a pretty beat up copy on display. The Tokina's build is L quality in my opinion. I've been very impressed with mine.
On a Dutch photo-forum there are very few people with the Tokina 12-24. One guy had to return a lens new out-of-the-box TWICE to get finally a working one. Another guy has similar complaints... all mechanical issues... so far the QC of Tokina.
I bought the sigma for many of the same reasons you are contemplating it's purchase. I wanted the extra 2mm over the tokina, and didn't want to pay a premium for the canon. My second choice would have been the tokina, which the constant f/4 is a big plus.
I haven't had the opportunity to use the sigma a whole lot yet, but here's a couple I took recently. I'll post the link, so I won't bore those who have seen these already in the landscape forum:
stefimke wrote:
On a Dutch photo-forum there are very few people with the Tokina 12-24. One guy had to return a lens new out-of-the-box TWICE to get finally a working one. Another guy has similar complaints... all mechanical issues... so far the QC of Tokina.
Don't get me wrong here as I'm not going to try and defend the Tokina. I think you'll find QC issues with any of the lenses being discussed here if you dig hard enough. I know I've seen some concerning the Canon and Sigma as well. But for every bad review you see, you'll find dozens of good ones. I think all of these lenses have their merits. You just need to decide which one has the specifications and price point you're most interested in and buy according to that. Then you just keep your fingers crossed that you get a good sample!!
I have the Canon 16-35/2.8L and the Tamron 14/2.8.
On a D30 I tried and still have the Sigma 15-30; loved it, fell out of love with it.
I bought and tried the Canon 20/2.8 and it showed no better then the Sigma 15-30.
I bought the Canon 16-35.
The first copy sucked wind big time. Sent it back and the second copy is to die for. I fell in love again and have never looked back. I also picked up a Tamron 14/2.8. The Tamron was the best of both worlds. Slightly better and cheaper then the Canon 14/2.8L but the lense coating isn't quite as good as the Canon version. The Sigma version failed on all accounts when compared to the Canon and Tamron version.
Shortly after getting the 16-35/2.8L, Canon came out with the 17-40/4.0L. So my experience is only with the above lenses.
It depends on what you want to do with it, of course. So far my 17-40 L has done what I need, but when and if I need a real "ultra wide" I may be inclined to get a 14mm or 15mm prime, or even an 8mm fisheye, rather than a zoom. At the "ultra wide" end, it appears that the compromises in a zoom are pretty severe.
i'm in the same boat. i'm thinking of picking up the 10-20 sigma soon, since the 10-22 canon won't work on my D60, and the 11-18 Tamron is more expensive with less range. Tokina's 12-24 is very nice too... but i thinkt he 10mm and HSM of the sigma will win me over. then again, the Tokina's got constant F4.
