10-22 vs. 11-16 vs. 12-24

travischance

I'm at the crossroads between the Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16 or Tokina 12-24 for my UWA needs. Currently, my widest lens is the 16-35 & with a 1.6x sensor, it simply isn't wide enough. Sure there are plenty of online reviews but I'm looking for those that have and/or have used the lenses listed above.

I rented the Canon about 3 months ago and both the AF & MF were quirky. Not to mention its the most expensive. The Tokina 11-16 has all the hype but I'm worried about the lack of range on the long side (sure I could crop the corners, but it's nice to have the desired composition at the time of capture). Finally the Tokina 12-24 has the range on the long end but there seems to be a significant different between 10mm & 12mm. Your thoughts?

mutti_wilson

Can't say for the other lenses, but I have the Tokina and it has been a gem. The 2.8 is super valuable in those low light situations, although with the UWA camera shake is not much of a problem. The build quality is super solid and it feels like a properly designed lens.

Qarik

Regard the 11-16mm. The reason you get a UWA is is to shoot UW. I don't find the range limiting at all all and I find I shoot towards the 11mm rnage most of the time anyway. It's a trade off..better optics vs limited range.

bgarland

I have the Canon 10-22 and I have been very happy with it. Very crisp and the AF has always worked well for me.

I don't want to clutter your thread with photos so you let me know if you want a couple examples posted.

travischance

Brad:

Photos would be helpful. The images taken with the one I rented were soft at f11 & f16. At this point, I'm looking for a really compelling reason to spend the additional $150. Thanks!

bgarland

Here are a few I have taken with the Canon 10-22.

Keep in mind that I'm a newbe at photography so deficiencies in the images are most likely related to my PP skills or just poor lighting when the shot was taken.

1.
F22, 10mm


2.
Cropped:
F8, 13mm


3.
F8, 22MM


4.
F8, 10mm

Glenn NK

I have the Tokina 12-24, and looked at and tested (in the store on a tripod) three copies of Canon 10-22.

In the end, I bought the Tokina because it was easily the better built lens of the two. Even snapping on the included lens hood is re-assuring - it fits smoothly and is snug.

The focus/zoom controls are smoother than the Canons I tested.

I also looked at the lens tests on PhotoZone, and they concluded that the performances were essentially the same. The Tokina does exhibit some CAs, but this can be fixed in post processing. On the two other counts (price and build), the Tokina easily won out.

Glenn

travischance

Thanks Glenn. Have you found 12mm to be limiting at times on the wide end?

Glenn NK

travischance wrote: »

Thanks Glenn. Have you found 12mm to be limiting at times on the wide end?

Travis:

No, in fact I rarely used it at 12 mm, but to be honest, I don't do a lot of landscape photography.

There are people that would prefer 10 mm over 12 mm though. I remember when I thought 38 mm on a FF (35 mm film camera) was wide. How things change.

Glenn

Eclipsed

If I was to make the choice, I would buy the Tokina 11-16 in no time. f/2.8 is very useful on a lens, even a UWA. My other choice would be the Sigma 8-16mm.

travischance

Thanks. I'll be using this specifically for landscapes & architecture & tripod mounted 90% of the time. While the 2.8 is nice the have, this is not an attribute that is the deciding factor as I already have 2.8 in my 16-35 2.8L (plus weather sealing).

Eclipsed

Considering what you said, my favorite lenses in that category are the Sigma 8-16 and the Canon 10-22.

travischance

Even with the permanently fixed hood and the inability to mount filters (CPL or GND) on the Sigma 8-16??? Seems to defeat the purpose for landscape work. It seems to to be the lens for UWA architecture & interior work. Thanks again.

Glenn NK

Travis:

This:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_24_3p5_tse_c10/

is the ideal lens for architectural and interior work.

Of course there is a 17 mm version too.

All other lenses are merely thinking wishfully.


Glenn

Eclipsed

travischance wrote: »

Even with the permanently fixed hood and the inability to mount filters (CPL or GND) on the Sigma 8-16??? Seems to defeat the purpose for landscape work. It seems to to be the lens for UWA architecture & interior work. Thanks again.

I have never used either filters, and have not found a need. But, that's my choice, and you may use a different setup. I think you should get the Canon 10-22mm if money is not an issue.

anonymouscuban

I'm with Daniel. I love my Tokina 11-16mm. As he mentioned, I find myself shooting mostly at 11mm. I rarely shoot at 16. The whole point of me getting the lens was to shoot wide shots. Actually, after learning how to use a WA, I would easily by a prime lens at 11mm without any debate.

Airedrifter

A Canon 10-22.

r3t1awr3yd

I owned the 12-24 for a few weeks before the 11-16 came out then traded up. I say up because the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is huge. That said, the 11-16 never comes off of 11 and is a smidge softer wide open than the 12-24 was. (hope that helps!)

If you're looking for low light shooting, ultrawide, get the 11-16. It's built like a tank too.