Which Ultra-Wide Lens?

[ian.bertram]

Hi all,
I have good friend (actually my daughter's partner) who is after an ultra wide zoom for a Canon 7D. He has narrowed his search (and budget I daresay) to either the Canon 10-22 EF-S or the Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM. The Canon had good reviews on Camerlabs, the Sigma has constant 3.5 (Canon is 3.5-4.5). I don't think he has dreams of going up to full frame so the aps-c probably doesn't matter too much. Has anyone got any firsthand experience of these lenses, or is there another one that we haven't looked at that you would recommend.

[sirhc55]

Samyang 8mm

[Mr Darcy]

Double check the specs on the Sigma. I have a 10-20 DC EX HSM that I quite like, but it is f/4-5.6 Maybe they have revised it but...

For me, it is more than good enough, but I spend most of my time at the other end of the zoom range. IT is just a "fun" lens for me. You are welcome to have a play, but it is Nikon mount.

THe Tokina 11-16 has had good reports here. Gerry?

[surenj]

Canon all the way. You can easily sell and buy the sigma if there is a change of mind. [which is highly unlikely]

[biggerry]

THe Tokina 11-16 has had good reports here. Gerry?

'tis a good lens - the only downside to it is the focal range, far too short, the 12-24 is probably better for the range, however if you do do some low light stuff (which is fairly specialised with a UWA) than the 2.8 is a good benefit. The only times i have really used the 2.8 is for aircraft cockpits (handheld) and astro stuff.. that said, this lens is damn sharp, very well built and a good price (i got it new for under 700)

[surenj]

I agree with Gerry although these days, the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is not that significant, as you can ramp the ISO a little. The zoom range of the 10-22 is definitely a winner for landscapes (is that the proposed use here?). There is less stuffing around with lens changes.

[Remorhaz]

THe Tokina 11-16 has had good reports here. Gerry?

'tis a good lens - the only downside to it is the focal range, far too short, the 12-24 is probably better for the range

Yep - you an Cam convinced me to go the 12-24 (Tokina) which is also an extremely good lens. My case is perhaps a little different since I already have the 8-16 for rediculously super wide stuff. If I didn't have that and was only going for one UWA (knowing what I know today and have used UWA's for lots of different photography styles and with filters, etc) (remembering I'm Nikon) I'd probably go the Nikon 10-24 or your 11-16 (and use it as an 11mm prime effectively )

[ozimax]

I owned the Canon 10-22mm for a year or two before heading into fullframeland. There are quote a few posts on the forum so you might want to do a search.

It is a sensational lens but it has it's focal length quirks. 10mm is really wide, IMHO, too wide for landscapes. I prefer to have my landscapes compressed a bit. It is a phenomenal architectural imaging tool, and it takes some some amazingly funky portraits, if you like distortions etc.

I really miss the 10-22mm. If I was shooting with a crop sensor, I would get one straightaway.

Hope this helps.

Ozi.

[aim54x]

I would quickly disregard the Sigma....esp the F/3.5 version. Lots of reports state that the newer f/3.5 cant match the older lens. The Canon EF-S 10-22 or the Tamron SP 10-24mm are worth looking at. I still vote either of the Tokina's (11-16 or 12-24).

[ian.bertram]

Thanks for all the input. I've passed on all the combined wisdom- we'll see what he goes with over the next day or two.