reccommend me a UWA lens for APS-C
- Thread starter zarray
- Start date
fudoushin
Senior Member
Another thing you may like to consider would be MFD, Canon and Sigma's MFD is much better than the Tokina 11-16. (For taking shots really close to ur subject)
Distortion and flare control, canon rises once more.
This is a hard pick, i used to own a sigma 10-20 (great lens too) but am very happy with my 10-22 right now! haha, though i think it would be nice to have 2.8 at times. but seriously, gotta ask yourself how often would you use a UWA in low light? (can compensate with higher ISO instead?)
the 10mm is alot wider than the 11mm (1.6mm on crop sensor-- should be another factor to consider)
All things said, u should go try out the new 8-16 as well. That would be insanely wide
Cheers
Distortion and flare control, canon rises once more.
This is a hard pick, i used to own a sigma 10-20 (great lens too) but am very happy with my 10-22 right now! haha, though i think it would be nice to have 2.8 at times. but seriously, gotta ask yourself how often would you use a UWA in low light? (can compensate with higher ISO instead?)
the 10mm is alot wider than the 11mm (1.6mm on crop sensor-- should be another factor to consider)
All things said, u should go try out the new 8-16 as well. That would be insanely wide
Cheers
kaylan2000
New Member
Thanks dear, you brought up all the points. Now it's up to the TS to decide based on his/her own preferences.
Not really felt this aspect with my Toki
Very true, the TS must decide whether f/2.8 is important or not. To me it was THE deciding factor but to many it may not be very important for this kind of lenses.
Very true, those who are wondering about 1mm difference.... it really makes difference in wider side.
So TS, you have so many things to ponder. You have all the facts in front of you, now time for decision. Anyway, you will not go wrong with any of the recommended lenses.
Not really felt this aspect with my Toki
Very true, the TS must decide whether f/2.8 is important or not. To me it was THE deciding factor but to many it may not be very important for this kind of lenses.
Very true, those who are wondering about 1mm difference.... it really makes difference in wider side.
Range is toooo tempting, but my personal observation about Sigma is, they are reasonably sharp but not as sharp as their Canon or Tokina equivalents. I own few Sigmas.. they are excellent value for money.... but when quality is the primary objective, Sigma is a tad behind. The difference is very minor .. but it's there
So TS, you have so many things to ponder. You have all the facts in front of you, now time for decision. Anyway, you will not go wrong with any of the recommended lenses.
Last edited:
davidyeotb
New Member
I recently (about a month ago) bought the Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 for my 1000D and there are a few reasons why i choose them over the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 & Tokina 12-24 f/4.
The tamron has a wider zoom range compared to the sigma (add. 4mm at far end) but still has a wider maximum apeture range (of f/3.5-4.5 compared to sigmas f/4-5.6). I choose it over the Tokina 12-24 because if you are going for a UWA lens, a few mm at the wide range is going to make a significant difference. the tamron is cheaper than the tokina & sigma (i got mine from Edison Photo in Sim Lim for $680). SO GO FOR THE TAMRON 10-24!
The tamron has a wider zoom range compared to the sigma (add. 4mm at far end) but still has a wider maximum apeture range (of f/3.5-4.5 compared to sigmas f/4-5.6). I choose it over the Tokina 12-24 because if you are going for a UWA lens, a few mm at the wide range is going to make a significant difference. the tamron is cheaper than the tokina & sigma (i got mine from Edison Photo in Sim Lim for $680). SO GO FOR THE TAMRON 10-24!
White Wolf
New Member
11-16 Toki for me. The IQ is quite significant~~
Is that larger aperture make significant IQ for landscape picture ? I've doubt that , event i always set at least f/16 to shoot the one .
Maybe I've seen enough pics and reviews. Most probably gonna settle on the EF-S 10-22 due to better flare resistance and the fisheye effect at 10mm might allow me to get a little bit more creative with my shots
There is no fisheye effect at 10mm on the 10-22.
jaegersing
Deregistered
I agree, the vertical lines stay pretty straight on mine. Of course there is a type of distortion in the image due to the extreme fov, but it s not the same effect as fish-eye.
hi guys.
i'm also looking for a UWA to go wth my 40D+24-105.... i used to own a tammy 18-270 but realised dat i dun really need the extra focal range. now with the 24-105, i'm starting to miss the WA shots. Given the small aperture of the 24-105, is the toki's f2.8 a better choice for me? as in i still have some low-light shooting capability with my 2 lens combi.
i'll rent both lenses but juz wana find out from u guys 1st.
TIA
i'm also looking for a UWA to go wth my 40D+24-105.... i used to own a tammy 18-270 but realised dat i dun really need the extra focal range. now with the 24-105, i'm starting to miss the WA shots. Given the small aperture of the 24-105, is the toki's f2.8 a better choice for me? as in i still have some low-light shooting capability with my 2 lens combi.
i'll rent both lenses but juz wana find out from u guys 1st.
TIA
yup i said it wrongly. What i meant was that distorted look at 10mm. Thanks for pointing out!
fudoushin
Senior Member
hi guys.
i'm also looking for a UWA to go wth my 40D+24-105.... i used to own a tammy 18-270 but realised dat i dun really need the extra focal range. now with the 24-105, i'm starting to miss the WA shots. Given the small aperture of the 24-105, is the toki's f2.8 a better choice for me? as in i still have some low-light shooting capability with my 2 lens combi.
i'll rent both lenses but juz wana find out from u guys 1st.
TIA
Depends on what you need the f2.8 for? Shooting in low light is an obvious reason - but do you often use a UWA in low light? There are times i wished i had f2.8 on my UWA - when i was shooting an indoor wedding dinner (2.8 will be nice at times like these).
IMO, I think you might miss the 1mm extra wide coverage on the 10-22, but by all means, go try both lenses, and see what works for you.
fudoushin
Senior Member
You are right. UWA lenses are not meant for bokeh, but f2.8 is for shooting in low-light at faster shutter speeds to avoid camera shake in situations where you do not want or cannot use flash (which can also be compensated by a higher iso - but noise maybe undesirable)
sanfong
Senior Member
Go check the lenses in photozone with comprehensive of tests. You will find that Tokina 11-16 is relatively sharp and all focal length but the distortion can't match Sigma 10-20 f4.5.6 **Note, its not the new f3.5 ones. Canon 10-22 is not bad too, but one thing it does not come with lens hood which will cost another $100.
The CA of Tokina lenses, similiar to all its own lenses line up, bad. Actually for me, I dun need the f2.8, cos most of the usage is for landscape, sharpness on all side is important and minimum distortions. I would go for Sigma older batch than the latest one. Simple reasons, lighter, price friendly and filter size is 77mm compare to the new one is 82mm!! A decent CPL will burn ur pocket.
The CA of Tokina lenses, similiar to all its own lenses line up, bad. Actually for me, I dun need the f2.8, cos most of the usage is for landscape, sharpness on all side is important and minimum distortions. I would go for Sigma older batch than the latest one. Simple reasons, lighter, price friendly and filter size is 77mm compare to the new one is 82mm!! A decent CPL will burn ur pocket.
Last edited:
Really? Show me these sample photos.
The Tokina 11-16 is designed for the APS-C format. It has been tested that this lens displays heavy vignetting at all focal lengths on full frame.
Shen siung
Senior Member
Yes UWA hard to get bokeh, but with f2.8, some level of not so pleasant oof.
But with f2.8, (reasonably sharp at f2.8), can use it for indoor low light group photos. When want to play safe, can use f3.5 and all faces will be at least in focus.
But again, yes, Canon wins by extra 1 mm at wide, and better flare control.
Don't take the risk with f/2.8 for group photos bro. It's a dangerous one especially on paid shoot.
i guess u mean chances of getting shots out of focus , am i right?
Similar threads
