DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Ultra-wide angle
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 47, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/20/2006 10:17:34 AM · #1
Must now add wide to arsenal:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM f/3.5-4.5, $675 (US)
Sigma AF 10-20mm HSM EX DC f4.5-6, $500 (US)
Sigma AF 12-24mm HSM EX DG f4.5-5.6, $650 (US)
Tokina AF 12-24mm AT-X Pro DX f4, $500 (US)

hep me, hep me - I am going crazy trying to figure out the best one.


12/20/2006 10:20:18 AM · #2
I hear the canon is the best of the lot... but I can do nothing but vouch for the awesome Tokina 12-24... it's a great lens...
 12/20/2006 10:25:17 AM · #3
The canon is great.
 12/20/2006 10:26:59 AM · #4
Another vote for the Tokina. In addition to being a good performer, it is built like a tank, feels real solid and heavy in the hand.

I've shot with the Canon too and it's hard to go wrong either way.
 12/20/2006 10:31:05 AM · #5
I have the Tokina AF 12-24mm AT-X Pro DX f4 (for Nikon) and it is my favorite lens. I would highly recommend it!
 12/20/2006 10:32:01 AM · #6
I have the 12-24mm, and it works great on fullframe 5D. Giving me true 12mm angle, now that's ultra-wide :-)

12/20/2006 10:33:28 AM · #7
I've got the Sigma 10-20mm and i love it, it gives a really wide look to the photos at 10mm. And when i put it on my 35mm camera it almost looks like a fish eye.

It certainly improved my landscapes.
 12/20/2006 10:38:05 AM · #8
another with Sigma 10-20mm

I've only got it on a 350d so not as wide as on a full frame but still pretty superb.
 12/20/2006 10:43:49 AM · #9
Update

Tokina AF 12-24mm AT-X Pro DX f4: 3
Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM f/3.5-4.5: 2
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC HSM f/4-5.6: 2
Sigma AF 12-24mm HSM EX DG f4.5-5.6: 1

I know some will NOT work on a full frame so if I ever twist my own arm hard enough and move up, I might have to leave the non-full frame lens behind. Yikes - something ELSE to add to the matrix.


12/20/2006 10:47:44 AM · #10
Originally posted by tcmartin:
[...] I know some will NOT work on a full frame so if I ever twist my own arm hard enough and move up, I might have to leave the non-full frame lens behind. Yikes - something ELSE to add to the matrix.


yes, but the canon 10-22 will have a very good resale value unless you don't take care of it or use it as a doorstop... don't let a theoretical limitation down the road keep you from getting the best lens for the job now (if you decide that the 10-22 would be the best lens for you)
 12/20/2006 10:47:55 AM · #11
I've never used any of the others, but I quite enjoy my Sigma 10-20mm.
 12/20/2006 10:56:08 AM · #12
I'm not that thrilled with the Tokina. It is soft and has a lot of CA wide-open. I am someone who likes to use lenses at and near their fastest apertures. Some are good for that, like the 30 f/1.4, the 70-200 f/2.8.
But I use the Tokina only at least 2 stops down at f/8.
The Nikkor was way to expensive.

It does its thing, it's good enough for what I want.



With Canon I'd go for the Canon lens.
 12/20/2006 10:58:05 AM · #13
I've got the canon, it's a great lens.
 12/20/2006 10:58:09 AM · #14
Originally posted by jimika:
I've got the Sigma 10-20mm and i love it, it gives a really wide look to the photos at 10mm. And when i put it on my 35mm camera it almost looks like a fish eye.

It certainly improved my landscapes.


I'm curious how you put this on a 35mm camera. As in the notes at B&H B&H it says this is not compatible with anything other then aps-c or smaller. So I am assuming this is a ef-s mount and wont mount on an EF mount just like the 10-22 canon.

MattO
 12/20/2006 11:03:30 AM · #15
I thought the Sigma 10-22 was made for digital and is true 10mm. Am I incorrect?
 12/20/2006 11:05:26 AM · #16
Originally posted by asimchoudhri:
Originally posted by tcmartin:
[...] I know some will NOT work on a full frame so if I ever twist my own arm hard enough and move up, I might have to leave the non-full frame lens behind. Yikes - something ELSE to add to the matrix.


yes, but the canon 10-22 will have a very good resale value unless you don't take care of it or use it as a doorstop... don't let a theoretical limitation down the road keep you from getting the best lens for the job now (if you decide that the 10-22 would be the best lens for you)


I agree...buy the Canon and worry about FF later. The Canon is awesome. You will not regret buying it.
 12/20/2006 11:05:43 AM · #17
I don't have too many Canon lenses, but
their 10-22 was a must have. It's sturdy and comfortable to use.
I really like it.
12/20/2006 11:07:10 AM · #18
Originally posted by asimchoudhri:
Originally posted by tcmartin:
[...] I know some will NOT work on a full frame so if I ever twist my own arm hard enough and move up, I might have to leave the non-full frame lens behind. Yikes - something ELSE to add to the matrix.


yes, but the canon 10-22 will have a very good resale value unless you don't take care of it or use it as a doorstop... don't let a theoretical limitation down the road keep you from getting the best lens for the job now (if you decide that the 10-22 would be the best lens for you)


Beat me to it. Keep the box, plastic sleeve and papers and you will likely not loose too much. The quality of the 10-22 is outstanding, and I often forget that I'm using an EF-S lens and not one of my L lenses. Plus, the 10mm is wide enough with the crop factor without too much distortion, I don't know if I'd like it at a "true" 10mm.
 12/20/2006 11:09:17 AM · #19
Originally posted by MattO:
I'm curious how you put this on a 35mm camera. As in the notes at B&H B&H it says this is not compatible with anything other then aps-c or smaller. So I am assuming this is a ef-s mount and wont mount on an EF mount just like the 10-22 canon.

MattO


AFAIK, these 3rd-party APS-C lenses don't use the EF-S physical mount, they are physically EF lenses, so you can mount them to a 35mm DSLR, you just get a cropped image, much like you'd get from a circular fisheye.
 12/20/2006 11:18:42 AM · #20
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by MattO:
I'm curious how you put this on a 35mm camera. As in the notes at B&H B&H it says this is not compatible with anything other then aps-c or smaller. So I am assuming this is a ef-s mount and wont mount on an EF mount just like the 10-22 canon.

MattO


AFAIK, these 3rd-party APS-C lenses don't use the EF-S physical mount, they are physically EF lenses, so you can mount them to a 35mm DSLR, you just get a cropped image, much like you'd get from a circular fisheye.


OK thanks, I ASSumed that they would use the EFS mount to avoid that confusion. I know the 10-22 wouldnt mount to my 1D and assumed 3rd party would be the same way.

MattO
 12/20/2006 11:20:37 AM · #21
FWIW my friend owned the canon and couldn't stand the distortion. He bought the sigma 12-24 and loves it. The only drawback in reviews iirc is that the sigma is more prone to flaring.

Just one person's expirience.
 12/20/2006 11:26:56 AM · #22
Originally posted by kyebosh:
FWIW my friend owned the canon and couldn't stand the distortion. He bought the sigma 12-24 and loves it. The only drawback in reviews iirc is that the sigma is more prone to flaring.

Just one person's expirience.


That's interesting... from what I'd read, I thought the Canon 10-22 had very low distortion. Perhaps we're talking about different things. When I say "distortion" I'm referring to "departure from rectilinear perspective," i.e. barrel or pincushion distortion. Very wide rectilinear lenses (even ones that have no barrel/pincushion) do apppear to distort objects near the edges of the field. A 12mm lens will have less of this than a 10mm lens, so yes, from that perspective a 12-24 would distort objects less than a 10-22.
FWIW, don't shoot people at 10mm and place them anywhere near the edge of the frame. Not flattering, LOL.
 12/20/2006 11:30:49 AM · #23
Sack up and go L.

Canon Super Wide Angle EF 14mm f/2.8L USM ($1,799.95)

Or go really wide:

Sigma Fisheye 8mm f/3.5 EX DG ($679.00)
 12/20/2006 11:38:43 AM · #24
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
FWIW my friend owned the canon and couldn't stand the distortion. He bought the sigma 12-24 and loves it. The only drawback in reviews iirc is that the sigma is more prone to flaring.

Just one person's expirience.


That's interesting... from what I'd read, I thought the Canon 10-22 had very low distortion. Perhaps we're talking about different things. When I say "distortion" I'm referring to "departure from rectilinear perspective," i.e. barrel or pincushion distortion. Very wide rectilinear lenses (even ones that have no barrel/pincushion) do apppear to distort objects near the edges of the field. A 12mm lens will have less of this than a 10mm lens, so yes, from that perspective a 12-24 would distort objects less than a 10-22.
FWIW, don't shoot people at 10mm and place them anywhere near the edge of the frame. Not flattering, LOL.


My experience with the Canon I rented was that it had alot of distortion and had to be corrected in nearly every shot I took. Easily done in PS but none the less had to be done.

MattO
 12/20/2006 11:44:32 AM · #25
Wow - all great info.
Please keep it coming.

The Canon does not come with a hood. That is another $35. for those of you that shoot with these, do you ofter use the hood (which I believe is a pedal in most cases).

Thanks again.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 01:32:47 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 01:32:47 PM EDT.