Asmodeous wrote:
Ive been checking around other forums and at pbase and haven't seen any other shots with the same barrel distortions traits I was getting with mine, though surprisingly, shots with this lens seem to be pretty rare.
Im quite convinced now that the copy that I had was faulty. I think somebody mentioned that it's focus group was out of alignment.
Thanks for the comment.
I've noticed there is a difference in the 10-20 with a Canon mount and the one with a Nikon mount, and then I don't mean just the mount but also the glass seems different. Maybe because of the 1.6x/1.5x crop difference?
I voted for the Tokina by purchasing it. It hasnt been delivered yet though, but these are my reasons for voting with my credit card:
Bang for the "English Pound"
I dont have an EF-s mount (10D)
All reviews I have read are favourable
I wanted the wide of the 10mm, but I NEED the reach of 24mm (else I would have got the Sigma 10-20 DC EX).
Constant f/4 (so it must be an 'L' then? :-))
At the time of writing, this lens is incredibly difficult to find in the UK. Everywhere else in the world has had it available for perhaps 6 months. I ordered mine from Germany (which is why I dont have it yet!)
I have been using the Tokina 12-24mm for about a week now and have been getting really great images with my 20D. Nice and sharp with outstanding color saturation and contrast. This is truly a very high-quality lens.
The lens is a pleasure to use -- very high build quality and solid mount. I like the clutch action on the M/AF adjustment and the movement of the zoom and focus rings are very smooth. Autofocus is quick and very quiet. May not quite be USM speed, but it's close enough for almost any subject I'd be using a SWA lens for anyway. It is built like a tank - seems to be all metal and glass.
I struggled quite a bit on deciding which lens to buy. Having recently bought an L lens, I felt that Canon had enough of my money already, and really didn't want to part with $750 for a lens that may be obsoleted when I eventually move on to a full-frame camera from the (fantastic..) 20D. However, I was open to considering the Canon if a less expensive option did not perform well, as I really enjoy using a SWA lens.
Long story short, the Tokina has definitely performed well enough for me to forego spending 50% more on the Canon. The only second thoughts I have now are about the similarly-priced (to Tokina) Sigma 10-22mm. I like the idea of having even wider range than Tokina's 12mm. Sigma's HSM might be marginally faster than Tokina's focus system, but the Tokina isn't slow - and again, I won't be using this lens to capture sports or animals very often! The Tokina nets-out the Sigma's focus advantage with its faster constant f/4 in my mind, which gives a fair amount of valuable flexibility in exposure choices.
Some of the Sigma 10-22 images I have seen (albeit very few) didn't look as good as what I've gotten with the Tokina - and in shooting with it for a couple of solid hours, I can't see the 10-12mm difference being a huge practical limitation. The 12mm is clearly "wide enough" for me - and many of the 10 -11mm shots I have seen on the web are somewhat distorted - which looks artsy-cool if you're into that kinda thing, but I'll eventually get a fisheye to shoot my 60's album cover shots. So I'm sticking with the bird in the hand.
According to the reviews below, the Tokina can be used on a full-frame camera with good results from 16mm up. I haven't tried this myself, but if believe everything you read on the web...
Hope this is helpful! I do not put myself out as an expert by any means, but I thought my thought process (non-linear as it is) might be helpful to someone just starting to look into the Canon SWA options.
akivisuals wrote:
The Canon rectilinear 14mm L is a ton of money for a relatively poor performing lens IMO. I've shot with a friend's 14L at a wedding and was very disappointed in the sharpness, or lack of sharpness from such an expensive lens. It's also way out of this guy's price range. He mentioned the 10-22 being too expensive so I doubt he'd want to pay 3x that much for the mediocre 14L.
I've owned the Canon 17-40L (2 copies), 10-22 (2 copies) and the 20-35L and have shot with a friend's 14L, 15 fish and 16-35L. In my personal experience, the 10-22 performed equally well to the 17-40L in my testing. I wound up selling one of the 10-22's and the 17-40L. YMMV....Show more →
I would say that the 14/2.8L is actually much better than mediocre However I wouldn't choose this lens if I were doing a wedding.
Besides the OP was asking what ultrawides people are using and that was my answer. Whether it's worth the price is for the buyer to decide. I personally like this odd lens because it's kinda weird.
I got my 10-22 before the others were available, and I love it. Its one of the sharpest lenses I own, including my L lenses. If there is one nonL zoom that matches L for quality, it must this one.
It might even be the main reason I am not going to invest in the upgrade to 5D and 16-35L.
Used on 10mm, it has f3.5 wide open - 2/3 stop less than 16-35, but it is rarely an issue.
André
I have not tried the Canon yet, but I had both the Tokina and the Sigma 10-20. The Tokina was built very well, and the constant f4 is great, the focus ring is nice as well since it moves freely when it is not engaged. The Sigma was simply too slow for indoor handheld, the Tokina managed that just fine. If I already had a FF camera, I'd be all over the 17-40mm.
However I wouldn't choose this lens if I were doing a wedding.