Depends what your using it for. Its difficult to get much background blur/bokeh with an UWA unless your really close to your subject.
If you using for outdoor/landscape work, the Tokina 12-24 is the best bang for the buck, IMO. For this type of work, your going to be most likely using it stopped down anyways.
I would only consider the Tokina 11-16 if you really need f/2.8 - are you going to be shooting indoors without a tripod (weddings, etc)? - if not then I would get the 12-24.
Also, for outdoor/landscapes, I would much rather have the 17-24mm range of the 12-24 than the 11mm of the 11-16.
I'm going to be using it on my 40D 1.6 crop...will there be a lot of distortion in the pictures that I would have to straighten after? I don't want to have to go back to every single picture I take with a lens just to make it look right.
I'm mostly getting WA for indoor shots, not a pro just dont want to be backed up against a wall to get everything I want in the picture. I also like the effect it gives when taking everyday pictures.
mach250 wrote:
I'm going to be using it on my 40D 1.6 crop...will there be a lot of distortion in the pictures that I would have to straighten after? I don't want to have to go back to every single picture I take with a lens just to make it look right.
I'm mostly getting WA for indoor shots, not a pro just dont want to be backed up against a wall to get everything I want in the picture. I also like the effect it gives when taking everyday pictures.
Distortions will definitely be there...there is almost no getting around it with ultra-wides. If that is going to be a deal-breaker, you may want to consider a Sigma 12-24, which I understand has an excellent reputation in the distortions department, and is often used for interior photography.
Also, speaking to your original post about wanting "a decent amount of bokeh", you may be going into this with unrealistic expectations. Ultra-wides and narrow DoF/"bokeh" are almost mutually exclusive unless you are very very close to your subject.
Just received my second had Sigma 12-24mm yesterday which cost £270. The first thing I was going to do was micro-adjust to achieve the sharpness I wanted, but I couldn't resist snapping off a few shots first. After looking at them it became clear no adjustment was needed as the images were incredibly sharp. The colours seem really vibrant too.
I was in your situation just a few weeks ago... In my case I was wondering between getting the Canon 10-22mm, 17-40mm or the 24mm2.8 + 50mmf1.8 (all around 700$ for them even the 2 primes combined). I'm also on a crop sensor. I finally opted for the 17-40mm L series. The 10-22mm was amazing and sharp...much much wider on my crop (obviously) then the 17-40mm but I couldn't see myself using that lens all the time. Therefore the 17-40 was more suitable for me and the IQ is great. Plus on the long run if you think of upgrading your body to a 5D you should consider it. I don't know what use you want the lens for but its a good all around lens...not as good as the 16-35mm but for the price its great and solid.
I went with the 17-40 f/4L on my 40D and I think it is a great compromise in focal length on both the wide end (not extremely wide) and the 40mm end (good for portraits). You're going to have to sacrifice something, and if lack of distortion is high on your list of criteria, the 17-40 f/4L is a pretty good candidate because the distortion begins to dissipate quickly as you zoom past 17mm.
I would say pick up a used 17-40 f/4L and a used 10-22 (if money permits), determine which focal length meets your needs, and sell the one you don't like. If you could locally test them that would be ideal.
