I am in the market for an Ultra-Wide Angle Lens for a 1.6 crop sensor. I do a lot of Civil War battlefield photography and am considering the following three lenses:
Sigma 10-20
Canon 10-22
Tamron 11-18
I have done quite a bit of reading on the Sigma and Canon and at this point I'm leaning toward the Sigma because the performance delta between the two seems minimal based on reviews with the Sigma coming in around $210 cheaper. But I am looking for hard recommendations notwithstanding my leaning and I haven't spoken with anyone who has experience with the Tamron 11-18.
Personally, I think you're going a bit too wide with those lenses. My 17-35L has some pincushioning effect at the 17 end and is almost gone by 24. But 24mm on a 1.6 crop camera is like a 38mm FOV, not real wide, but maybe wide enough for what you're shooting.
Personally, I like the built quality and performance of Tokina 12-24 so I wonder why it is not in your list... Maybe you absolutly need to go wider than 12mm
-"tack" sharp at f/4 across the image. Acceptable at f/2.8
-$100-130
-Compact (300g sized like a 50/1.8)
-Made from metal with a nicely damped focus wheel
-Wide even when de-fished.
Cons:
-Manual focus. Not a problem really. Everything past 1.3m is inf. focus.
-Preset metering. Can't understand why people complain about this.
I was trying to decide between a Tokina 12-24 and canon 10-22. I decided to go for the Canon. When I tested them in the shop, 10mm seemed to be quite a bit of a difference at the wide end vs. 12mm. I picked up a used one on the board here, and I must say I am amazed at the quality of that lens. It is absolutely amazing. To me, it was worth the extra $100 for the Canon. I love it.
I tried out the tokina, and the canon 10-22. I went with the canon lens, because I wanted uber wide. It's amazingly sharp, and crisp. If you are photographing a wide field of action, it will be great for that. Just bare in mind, that there can be a bit of distortion on the sides, so if you catch people there, they will be a little distorted. I use that as a feature tho.
Ok, thanks for the good word on the Tokina 12-24 -- I hadn't given it prior consideration, but will definitely add it to the mix and hearing so many people give it praise is feedback on research in itself.
khiromu, it's not that I "need" to go wider than 12mm, but given what I have read about other folks using UWA lenses, may seem to acknowledge, as Jeff H. does above, that that last step to 10mm from 12 or even 14 is a significant one.
But again, I like what I'm hearing about the 12. If anyone here has a gallery with photos taken with the Tokina (particularly toward the wider end), I would love to see them.
That's what I went for, and I haven't looked back since.
Two months ago I had to make the same decision. Ended up with the tokina cus the canon was too expensive, the tamron was plain awful ( slow aperture, short range, horrible focusing, pricier than the sigma or tokina.... but worst of all: the tamron felt like a cheap piece of plastic), and I preferred the tokina over the sigma because of the constant f/4 aperture, the better build, less distortion.. and did I mention build?
I'd recommend you to stay away from the tamron, but otherwise you can't go too wrong. The tokina sure is worth having a look at tho.
benedict, thanks for the feedback and comparative insights -- that's exactly what I'm looking for. I am hearing a lot of people with good things to say about the Tokina...
tomh, thanks for the link --- I've been watching that thread with extreme interest.
I have the Canon and love it. But I've heard the same thing from the Tokina crowd, and a bit from the Sigma crowd. I personally don't think you can go wrong with either of the first two. Toss a die, if it comes up 4,5,or 6 get the Canon. If it's a 2,3 get the Tokina. If it comes up 1, send me your money and I'll ship you a really nice 18-55. :-)
