Stuck between these Ultra wide.

[Hoky]

Went to John 3:16 yesterday to test out the Tokina and Canon.

From glances through the viewfinder and LCD, it seems like they are pretty close the same for the images.
The Canon has a wider perspective of course, however it is more expensive.
Can’t see much of a distortion… sharpness is good, and so is color and contrast.
Similar to the L lens, the 10-22 has FTM which is great… But I don’t see the advantage when I’m trying to do landscape.
The Tokina on the other hand has excellent built quality and the AF-MF clutch is damn cool with nice engagement clicks.

I can’t make any differences out of them in terms of picture quality so I put off the purchase until I can get a real comparison on screen.

I’m surprised that Samuel advised getting the Tokina when everyone else has lots of praises for the Canon.

 

[jdredd]

Jdredd Not to side anyone here, but Stoned has a point. (Especially on cost issues.)
If FF is something that you're aiming for in the near future, then an EF-S (or "vignetted" lens for the FF) will not be advisable.
You'll get a better range and features (FTM... etc) with something like 17-40L F4.

Unless you are like me, itching for wide but dun have the capital for a 5D or 1DSMKII. :cry:

well i guess it boils down to horses for courses.

if i get a 10-22, i can ONLY use it whilst i have a 1.6 crop DSLR.

if i get a 10-20, i can use it now, and it will also serve a reasonable wide angle purpose later on if i upgrade to a full frame camera. without me having to spend extra on yet another lens. lets remember, that for a full frame camera, 16mm was considered wide angle. and that is something you can get by with on the sigma without vignetting issues.

for me, i dont need a 17-40, or a 16-35, because i already have a general purpose zoom. so the cannon, or the sigma, would only be there to serve its for wide angle photog. and it can serve that purpose, in both a cropped sensor , or a 1.3, or a full frame DSLR.

that to me, is the advantage of the sigma. and i save $300 to boot.

 

[Stoned]

well i guess it boils down to horses for courses.

if i get a 10-22, i can ONLY use it whilst i have a 1.6 crop DSLR.

if i get a 10-20, i can use it now, and it will also serve a reasonable wide angle purpose later on if i upgrade to a full frame camera. without me having to spend extra on yet another lens. lets remember, that for a full frame camera, 16mm was considered wide angle. and that is something you can get by with on the sigma without vignetting issues.

for me, i dont need a 17-40, or a 16-35, because i already have a general purpose zoom. so the cannon, or the sigma, would only be there to serve its for wide angle photog. and it can serve that purpose, in both a cropped sensor , or a 1.3, or a full frame DSLR.

that to me, is the advantage of the sigma. and i save $300 to boot.

No no, you missed my point. You don't actually save, you lose! You can sell of the Sigma 2nd hand at around 700 right, you can purchase the sigma 17-35 for FF at 500 2nd hand, so won't that result in a net gain of 200?

There's also a greater, more important reason outside of cost when using the Sigma on a FF or 1.3x body for something like events work. You know in your head that 16-20mm is usable right, no problem, but can you tell what 16mm looks like in the viewfinder? What's to prevent you from zooming out past 16mm and getting vignetting if say you looked through the viewfinder and you noticed that it wasn't wide enough. The most likely thing you will do rather than step back is to zoom out because you don't know that it has hit the limit at 16mm. There is thus a potential risk that vignetting may occur anyway due to user error as you can't possibly limit the lens at 16mm can you.

What I did personally(you might find it idiocy but since I've already done it it's too late anyhow) was to purchase a 1.6x camera solely for the purpose of using it with cropped sensor lenses. You therefore still retain your 1.3x or 1.0x body, but don't have to worry about vignetting when making ultra-wide shots. You'd need a backup anyway when shooting an event.

Anyway, with 1.6x bodies going so cheaply on the 2nd hand market nowadays, there's no real reason to sell your current 1.6x and plus if you can afford a 1-series body, you could easily pick up a 1.6x with the spare change.

Just my personal view. If you're really happy paying for a lens that gives you a 4mm zoom range with a mega slow aperture and adds a slight risk of ruining images, it's totally up to you. It just doesn't make sense to me personally, not slamming your decision.

 

[jdredd]

No no, you missed my point. You don't actually save, you lose! You can sell of the Sigma 2nd hand at around 700 right, you can purchase the sigma 17-35 for FF at 500 2nd hand, so won't that result in a net gain of 200?

There's also a greater, more important reason outside of cost when using the Sigma on a FF or 1.3x body for something like events work. You know in your head that 16-20mm is usable right, no problem, but can you tell what 16mm looks like in the viewfinder? What's to prevent you from zooming out past 16mm and getting vignetting if say you looked through the viewfinder and you noticed that it wasn't wide enough. The most likely thing you will do rather than step back is to zoom out because you don't know that it has hit the limit at 16mm. There is thus a potential risk that vignetting may occur anyway due to user error as you can't possibly limit the lens at 16mm can you.

What I did personally(you might find it idiocy but since I've already done it it's too late anyhow) was to purchase a 1.6x camera solely for the purpose of using it with cropped sensor lenses. You therefore still retain your 1.3x or 1.0x body, but don't have to worry about vignetting when making ultra-wide shots. You'd need a backup anyway when shooting an event.

Anyway, with 1.6x bodies going so cheaply on the 2nd hand market nowadays, there's no real reason to sell your current 1.6x and plus if you can afford a 1-series body, you could easily pick up a 1.6x with the spare change.

Just my personal view. If you're really happy paying for a lens that gives you a 4mm zoom range with a mega slow aperture and adds a slight risk of ruining images, it's totally up to you. It just doesn't make sense to me personally, not slamming your decision.

heh. i think we migh tbe at cross purposes here.

option 1. assuming im going full frame in future.

buy canon 10-22 for $1090. buy FF camera. i would have to sell the 10-22, and buy a wide angle lens for the FF camera. say for arguments sake the 17-40 at $1000. total expenditure is $2090. lets not talk about resale values. but bear in mind, i would already have a general purpose lens from 24mm , so in effect, the 17-40 is onlyuseful for me between 17-24mm.

option 2. same assumption.
buy sigma 10-20 for $890. buy FF camera. use sigma (from 16mm to 18mm). so what i have then, as compard to option 1, will be agap of about 4mm in focal length coverage.

as im getting a wide angle to shoo twide angle, not 20mm, or 22mm, that 4mm is not so important to me.

ok no doubt i can sell the 10-22. and ill have to. so then its a question of how much do i lose for the 10-22. and then topping up more for the 17-40. lets say i make $300 dollars loss on the 10-22. and buyin g a new 17-40 will over time inevitably net me a loss too.

if i just got the sigma, i avoid all of that.

 

[Stoned]

heh. i think we migh tbe at cross purposes here.

option 1. assuming im going full frame in future.

buy canon 10-22 for $1090. buy FF camera. i would have to sell the 10-22, and buy a wide angle lens for the FF camera. say for arguments sake the 17-40 at $1000. total expenditure is $2090. lets not talk about resale values. but bear in mind, i would already have a general purpose lens from 24mm , so in effect, the 17-40 is onlyuseful for me between 17-24mm.

option 2. same assumption.
buy sigma 10-20 for $890. buy FF camera. use sigma (from 16mm to 18mm). so what i have then, as compard to option 1, will be agap of about 4mm in focal length coverage.

as im getting a wide angle to shoo twide angle, not 20mm, or 22mm, that 4mm is not so important to me.

ok no doubt i can sell the 10-22. and ill have to. so then its a question of how much do i lose for the 10-22. and then topping up more for the 17-40. lets say i make $300 dollars loss on the 10-22. and buyin g a new 17-40 will over time inevitably net me a loss too.

if i just got the sigma, i avoid all of that.

Ah but if you were to buy 2nd hand? 17-40Ls and 10-22s do go for the same price on BnS you know You probably could swap one for the other without any loss.

And do you really want to keep switching lenses during an assignment? Just to transit from 20mm - 30mm?

 

[jdredd]

whilst i dont camp out on B&S... i really hardly ever see any 10-22's for sale, unlike 17-40Ls which are relatively common..

 

[panzerpunk]

whilst i dont camp out on B&S... i really hardly ever see any 10-22's for sale, unlike 17-40Ls which are relatively common..

4 went up on sale recently and 2 out of 4 were grabbed in like 3 days? :bsmilie:

 

[Stoned]

whilst i dont camp out on B&S... i really hardly ever see any 10-22's for sale, unlike 17-40Ls which are relatively common..

I think that's generally the case because the 17-40L has been around for a lot longer than the 10-22. It should even out soon, if it hasn't already.

 

[Hoky]

Called up CP today...
#$%^@#

They quoted me the 10-22mm for $1170 today.
On Monday, they quoted me $1080 when they didn't had stock. :angry:

 

[panzerpunk]

Called up CP today...
#$%^@#

They quoted me the 10-22mm for $1170 today.
On Monday, they quoted me $1080 when they didn't had stock. :angry:

I bought mine at $1170 also. $1080 is without GST i think.. Maybe the guy made an error

 

[Stoned]

Called up CP today...
#$%^@#

They quoted me the 10-22mm for $1170 today.
On Monday, they quoted me $1080 when they didn't had stock. :angry:

Why not just get from oracle. He's selling 1080 exactly.

 

[Hoky]

I don't know if he still have stock.. not mentioned during his recent M.O. messages.
Will message him if I don't get it from the shops by end of the week.

Thanks for the info.

 

[Hoky]

Bought my EFS 10-22 today at CP. Woo hooo.... Proud owner of any quality Canon lens.

 

[panzerpunk]

Bought my EFS 10-22 today at CP. Woo hooo.... Proud owner of any quality Canon lens.

Make sure you got your lens hood also... but get it from TCW =)

 

[kraterz]

I didnt like the 10-22 vignetting. Even when I stop down it vignetted a significant amout. I rather use the 17-40L and one superwide prime.

 

[Hoky]

Tried it yesterday before I bought it.
At wide open (F/3.5), 10mm shows no significant vignetting.... That is without a filter.
Borrowed their Tokina 77mm, also seems to look fine.

 

[panzerpunk]

I didnt like the 10-22 vignetting. Even when I stop down it vignetted a significant amout. I rather use the 17-40L and one superwide prime.

The only time when it vignetted was when I use the 17-55 hood on it... Vignetting occured from 10-15mm cos the hood was too long. Other than that, the 10-22 was fine, no vignetting at all with hood + B+W fat polariser

 

[Hoky]

Put on my B+W UV Filter on the 10-22 yesterday.
It looks as if the convex lens at the far end will kenna the filter at 10mm.
Dunno if it touches the filter or not.

 

[kross]

saw someone posted the sigma 10-20mm on fullframe and 1.3x crop...

1dsmk2@10mm
1dsmk2@20mm
1dmk2@10mm
1dmk2@20mm

notice the vignett is pretty bad at 20mm on a fullframe....why's that so?? tot should be getting better from 16mm onwards? :dunno:

cheers...

 

[Zplus]

saw someone posted the sigma 10-20mm on fullframe and 1.3x crop...

1dsmk2@10mm
1dsmk2@20mm
1dmk2@10mm
1dmk2@20mm

notice the vignett is pretty bad at 20mm on a fullframe....why's that so?? tot should be getting better from 16mm onwards? :dunno:

cheers...

If you consider this the "Holga" effect for that lomography style... it can be quite artistic.
Don't forget... vignetting adds character..... think out of the box...