Right , having decided that I'll be keeping my crop 7D for a while yet (no real desire to jump to ff) I'm getting thoughts of adding a UWA to my bag.
1st I currently have a tokina 12-24 but I find that when I use it I'm mostly on the 12mm stop and wanting more .
Now I've seen a coupe of lenses listed 2nd hand and they are both the same price.
I'm tempted by both .
Canon 10-22 OR sigma 8-16 .
Now the canon has the advantages of being a bit faster , a 'normal' lens and being canon .
The sigma has the added width . But the downsides of te bulbous front and its slower .
I chose the canon because it is a canon, and because I got a used one for way cheaper than I should have. 10-12 is not that much difference... If you want wider, the sigma is wider...
Edward Castro wrote:
Don't forget Sigma's 10-20mm, it has a constant f3.5.
Hadn't forgotten that one . (Or the cheaper 4.5-5.6 either)
But I've not seen a 3.5 come up used here (uk) very often . And while the cheaper one is a good lens I'm not really interested .
The thing is a source of used lenses that I have used before has both the 10-22 and 8-16 in stock at the same price . So really those are the options .
15Bit wrote:
I have the 10-22mm and its an excellent lens. Low on distortions, high on optical quality.
Hi Ian,
Echo above, the 10-22 should be an L lens, but EF-S don't get the red ring...the 17-55 f2.8 is much the same, both are simply pro level glass for crop bodies. I don't have any new 3rd party lenses, any I might have are from the 70s or 80s and are manual focus. Since around 1998 I've kept to Canon lenses due to their motors, even the low end glass seemed better then 3rd party ones; although some of the newer Sigma's as of late are getting good/great reviews, some Tokina's also.
I seriously thought I'd be selling this lens after picking up the 17-40 for my EOS3 film bodies; FF is anticipated this year, but I'll be keeping it...it's that good. And it takes filters without complaint, the Sigma's and other UWA that have a bubble for a front element are for me a PITA to use; don't even have a fisheye yet...
My best on your decision; btw, 10-22 on a crop body is equivalent to 16-35 on FF...if you need wider, maybe the 8-15L fisheye...I don't seem to need wider then 16/17 as I can always stitch a few images if needed.
Jerry
Paulthelefty wrote:
I chose the canon because it is a canon, and because I got a used one for way cheaper than I should have. 10-12 is not that much difference... If you want wider, the sigma is wider...
Paul
Well at these FOV even 1mm is a big difference. Going 1 or 2mm tighter on my 12-24/4 is pretty noticable so being able to go even 1mm wider would be a bigger change .
As everything gets converted to FF terms in most people's heads I think of it as a 3.2mm change .
ie a ff body with a 16mm or a 19mm . That's quite a bit wider .
Having not used the Sigma I can't say much Ian, however, if I found myself back with a crop camera, the Canon 10-22 would likely be the first or second lens I'd reacquire. It produced wonderfully and consistently on my XTi, 40D and 7D.
Not to muddy the water but...the Tokina 11-16 ef-s gets good reviews too.
I've been really happy with my 10-22, I've compared it to the 17-40 L on full frame, and IMO the 10-22 is just as good if not better than the 17-40
I also like the ability to use screw-in filters, and it's very light weight so it's easy to carry
I haven't tried the Sigma; however 8mm is a lot wider than 10mm, so if you want more width then it's worth considering
The Tokina 11-16 is also great (built like a tank and it's f/2.8), but it's only 1mm wider than your 12-24, and the Minimum Focal Distance is 30cm (the Canon can focus down to 24cm)
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
Hadn't forgotten that one . (Or the cheaper 4.5-5.6 either)
But I've not seen a 3.5 come up used here (uk) very often . And while the cheaper one is a good lens I'm not really interested .
The thing is a source of used lenses that I have used before has both the 10-22 and 8-16 in stock at the same price . So really those are the options .
Don't waste money on the Sigma f/3.5 version. Never seen a good review and it's optically no better than the much cheaper slower version.
10-22 is hard to beat with the prices sold in the used market. Tok 11-16 would be my second choice. The only thing I dread about the 10-22 is the light stars it produces with its 6 bladed aperture.
Personally I wouldn't swap the 12-24 for any of the other offerings with the exception of the 8-16 if you want dramatically wider. I'd rather stitch if I need extra width than just go UWA and loss of filters is big issue for me (and you don't just use polarizers for better skies) and then there's the hassle of trying to use ND's. Is there even a adapter for the Sigma 8-16?
I owned the sigma 8-16 when I had a 7d. it's a good lens. if you want the widest without going fish, it's the way to go. sounds like that's what you really want.... the 8mm pov. word of warning: human beings turn to taffy in the sides/corners at 8mm. it can be tricky
unfortunately I can't help you with either of those 2 lenses but the 10-20 f3.5 sigmas come up here and there over here. Got a great deal on mine so upgraded from the f3.5. I would agree with your decision to not bother with the cheaper of the two. It's good but the f3.5 version is definitely better if you have any intention at all of shooting at f5.6 or wider.
The 10-22 is a more versatile lens. The 8-16 is much more special-purpose and often too slow to use indoors. It is, however, wickedly sharp and better than the 10-22 in the corners if you find a copy that's not decentered.
I have a Canon 10-22 and it never left my camera, it's very small and light with excellent image quality. I would have been tempted by the wider sigma but I really wanted a ultra wide angle which would take filters!
