# Wide angle lens



## bklein61 (Oct 16, 2011)

This is my first post on the forum by have been done lots of reading on this site for over a year.

I am looking for advice on a wide angle lens for 50D Camera. My present gear is

Canon 50D
Canon 70-300L IS
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 18-55 IS Kit lens

I am wanting to keep this lens with $800.00 - $1000.00

I am looking for a lens that will have low CA and the best possible resolution for this kind of money.
Thanks in advance for any advice you might have


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 16, 2011)

bklein61 said:


> I am looking for advice on a wide angle lens for 50D Camera. ...
> 
> I am wanting to keep this lens with $800.00 - $1000.00



The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is very good, and listed for $800-$850.

The Sigma 8-16mm is as wide as you'll get, and listed for $700. My impression from reviews it's not as good as the Canon EF-S 10-22mm, but read the reviews, see photos, and decide for yourself.


----------



## cezargalang (Oct 16, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> bklein61 said:
> 
> 
> > I am looking for advice on a wide angle lens for 50D Camera. ...
> ...



I support this - the 10-22 is good if you have that crop sensor and it's the only one i think that'll satisfy your wide angle needs. There's also the tokina 11-16 2.8 - you can consider that, and it's a 2.8, it comes in handy sometimes  

I dont like the sigma, you can't put a filter on it afaik, or can someone correct me.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 16, 2011)

Canon 10-22mm seems to fit the bill nicely. Refurbs save a little or buy it new.

This is one of three EF-S lenses that Canon considers to be a professional grade lens, the others being the 17-55mm and the 60mm Macro.

It can be registered if you hold a CPS membership.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_269483_-1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2011)

Question: wide angle, or ultrawide angle? In other words, you have an EF-S 18-55mm kit lens which covers the wide angle end, but are you looking for an even wider lens to supplement that, or something to approximately replace it but deliver better IQ?

If you want ultrawide, I'll repeat the recommendation of the Canon 10-22mm. It delivers the best IQ in the (fairly crowded) APS-C ultrawide zoom class. 

If you want to replace the 18-55mm with something better, consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. The difference between them boils down to a wider zoom range vs. a faster and constant max aperture. The 17-55mm is, IMO, the best general purpose zoom for APS-C. The 15-85mm makes an excellent outdoor walkaround lens, best used with an external Speedlite indoors. 

Those three lenses (10-22, 17-55, 15-85) deliver optical performance equivalent to L-series lenses, although the build quality is short of that level.


----------



## akiskev (Oct 16, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you want ultrawide, I'll repeat the recommendation of the Canon 10-22mm. *It delivers the best IQ *in the (fairly crowded) APS-C ultrawide zoom class.


Surely Canon 10-22 is a great UWA lens. But is it the best in terms of IQ?
Tests at photozone.de and the-digital-picture.com tend to favor Sigma 8-16.
The Sigma seems to deliver higher resolution and less CA. Here is a comparison.

I'm very interested in this conversation because I don't have an UWA lens for my aps-c at the moment.
I had a Sigma 10-20 for a couple of years and I'm searching for a replacement.

I'm between Canon 10-22, Sigma 8-16 and Tokina 11-16.
I'll use it for landscape photography and concerts (so 2.8 is very tempting!!!).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2011)

I stand corrected. The Sigma 8-16mm does, indeed, have an edge in terms of sharpness and CA. However, note that it performs worse in terms of vignetting and is also more subject to flare (and flare can be a big problem with an UWA lens, since it can be tough to avoid having the sun in the frame).


----------



## iaind (Oct 16, 2011)

Canon 10-22mm here also. Used it on 40d and found it brilliant for landscapes.


----------



## TexPhoto (Oct 16, 2011)

The sigmas 8mm is much wider than the Canon's 10mm. So it wins there. Everything I've read says the Tokina 11-16 beats the Canon for IQ, but the zoom range is quite small. 2.8 is nice though. 

The canon 10-22 is a great lens, and was the absolute bes at what it did when first out, but has been surpassed in the years since. But there are advantages to just having Canon gear.

Kind of a toss up between the three, just depends what is important to you.

If you think you might cross over to FF at some point soon, consider the Sigma 12-24 I or II.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 16, 2011)

Best resolution and low CAs are probably going to be from a prime lens. Unfortunately, the 24mm and 35mm f/1.4L (mark II for the 24mm version) lenses are about $400-$600 more than the top end of your budget, but you can still get a cheap and nice prime - The Digital Picture seems to give good marks to the 24mm f/1.8 and the 35mm f/2 (I've seen some shots from the 35mm and the only thing I would worry about was the shape of out of focus lights when the aperture is closed down from f/2 - pin lights turn into geometric shapes which isn't terribly pleasing, but it's not terrible either). For zooms TDP seems to recommend the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the 17-40mm L which are both, again, out of the price range, but the 16-35mm is sharper than some of the other wide primes, at least wide open. Can't beat the prices and those are very small prime lenses, however.

Ought to mention - I've no actual personal shooting experience but I figured it'd be helpful to give you my perspective on the prime lenses, which are usually (but not always) a good way to find good resolution for the price.

In all truth, Canon hasn't had a good reputation for wide angle lenses until lately (and then mainly in zooms and specialized, expensive lenses like the new TS-E lenses, or the 8-15mm fisheye).


----------



## akiskev (Oct 17, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> Kind of a toss up between the three, just depends what is important to you.
> 
> If you think you might cross over to FF at some point soon, consider the Sigma 12-24 I or II.


Thanks for the answer!

I use FF too(eos 3 and my dad's 5d mkii). That's the main reason I sold my old Sigma 10-20 (it had a minor iq problem as well) and bought a Canon 17-40. 
But the fact is that I don't have access to the 5d whenever I want, and film is not as convenient as digital..


----------



## lottetashilama (Oct 17, 2011)

I have a samyang 8mm f3.5 fisheye with my 50d.
We are really happy together...

Really sweet lens, very nicely buit, and the manual-focus-only is definitively not a problem at this focal range.

It has a "stereographic projection"...won't go technical cause I know nothing, BUT, real-life, it is a fish eye that makes flat pictures. Amazing perspective, without the distortion that usually casts fisheyes as special effect lenses, so it is a very usable lens.

If too wide, the 14mm got really good reviews as well and I expect it to be in the same category than the 8mm.

The tokina 11-16 2.8 seems very desirable. Someone on the forum posted about the small zoom range, but zooms are not essentials at wide angle (I would even say pointless if I dared too!)

Anyway, check the photozone review:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/526-samyang8f35eos

Cheerio!


----------



## bklein61 (Oct 17, 2011)

Thank You for your reply's

These were the 3 lenses I was thinking of
Sigma 8-16
Tokina 11-16
Canon 10-22

I have in the back of my mine that I might consider a FF camera down the road and had a thought of the Canon 17-40L, although I know it will no longer be UWA lens on the crop sensor, but would increase the IQ from 18-55 kit lens


----------



## unfocused (Oct 17, 2011)

Everyone has their personal preferences. I own the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and the Canon 15-85 zoom. This has been a very good combination for me. the 15-85 is comparable to 24mm at the wide end on a traditional 35mm body, which is about as wide as you ever need for a "normal" wide angle. But, it is a slow lens. (Offset somewhat by IS). However, it is sharp and well-built. I probably have it on my 7d about 90% of the time.

The Tokina has a very short zoom range, but it is a critical range, going from from ultrawide to wide. It is relatively fast and very sharp. The build quality if also very good. At the wide end, I find IS kind of superfluous, so don't really miss it.

I think generally, Tokina lenses are too often overlooked. They seem to really concentrate on just making a few very good lenses. I don't own the Canon 10-22 so can't compare the two head to head, but I'd be very surprised if the Canon is any better in terms of IQ and it is a slower lens.

I read lots of posts from people who say they want to eventually buy a full-frame body. I suspect many say that simply because they think it makes them sound more serious about photography. If you have some reason why you want a full frame body that's fine. But unless you are really serious about moving to full frame in the next six months or so, I wouldn't be making lens buying decisions based on what you might do at some undetermined point in the future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2011)

bklein61 said:


> These were the 3 lenses I was thinking of
> Sigma 8-16
> Tokina 11-16
> Canon 10-22



All three seem to be good lenses. I have no direct experience with either the Sigma or the Tokina, but I had the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for about a year (prior to getting a 5DII and 16-35mm f/2.8L II). The 10-22mm is an excellent lens. Here are a couple of examples:




EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 10mm, 0.6 s, f/14, ISO 100




EOS 7D, EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 18mm, 1/100 s, f/11, ISO 100




bklein61 said:


> I might consider a FF camera down the road and had a thought of the Canon 17-40L, although I know it will no longer be UWA lens on the crop sensor, but would increase the IQ from 18-55 kit lens



Don't be to sure about that... It might be hard to believe, but the lowly 18-55mm IS kit lens actually delivers slightly better resolution across the frame than the 17-40mm L, when both are used on the same APS-C body. 

I'm a firm believer in getting the lens you need now, unless 'down the road' is next month. 'Down the road' may never happen... 

When I got my 5DII, I chose the 16-35mm to replicate the 10-22mm focal length on APS-C, because the IQ of the 16-35mm is substantially better than the 17-40mm (which is quite soft in the corners, even stopped down). I sold the 10-22mm after nearly a year of use, and it went for only $50 less than the price I paid for the lens (new from Amazon), and that was before the round of price increases earlier this year - today, I'd have made a profit on the sale. Actually, that's one other differentiator between Canon and 3rd party lenses - the Canon lenses tend to hold their relase value better than the Sigma and other 3rd party counterparts.


----------



## NormanBates (Oct 17, 2011)

I'm a Samyang fan, ever since I saw the bokeh tests from their 85mm f/1.4 (very similar to the Canon 85mm f/1.2 and Zeiss 85mm f/1.4, and a lot better than the already-more-expensive Canon 85mm f/1.8 )

The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 has some issues with full frame cameras (mustache distortion, soft edges), but on APS-C it is amazing: sharper and with less CA than the Canon 10-22, the Sigma 8-16 or the Tokina 11-16:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/533-samyang14f28eosapsc?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/666-tokina1116f28eos?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc?start=1

yes, it has more distortion than some of the others, but at $380 it is also the cheapest by far:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html


----------



## Granamere (Oct 17, 2011)

You might want to look at these 3 links as well. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/...de-angle/sigma-10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm-for-canon 

http://www.juzaphoto.com/...g/articles/sigma_10-20_vs_canon_tamron_tokina.htm

http://photo.net/equipment/wideangle-dslr 

I found them helpful in helping me decide to buy the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5. I really love the lens. ;D


----------



## Forceflow (Oct 17, 2011)

Granamere said:


> You might want to look at these 3 links as well.
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/...de-angle/sigma-10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm-for-canon
> 
> ...



Uhm, the two first links aren't working. Looks like part of the url is missing.


----------



## NormanBates (Oct 17, 2011)

it looks like he copied it from some other forum post, so they're shortened

also, in case anybody is still not confortable with the Samyang brand name: I was updating something in my site, and just found this: the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 is A LOT sharper than the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, which costs three times as much:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
it's actually pretty close to the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=749&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 14mm f/2.8 has recently been added to that site too, but it was tested on full frame, and, as you'll see, it sucks in the corners (on middle and mid-frame, which is what you'd use on APS-C, it is fine):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=769&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=454&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 17, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> I'm a Samyang fan, ever since I saw the bokeh tests from their 85mm f/1.4 (very similar to the Canon 85mm f/1.2 and Zeiss 85mm f/1.4, and a lot better than the already-more-expensive Canon 85mm f/1.8 )
> 
> The Samyang 14mm f/2.8 has some issues with full frame cameras (mustache distortion, soft edges), but on APS-C it is amazing: sharper and with less CA than the Canon 10-22, the Sigma 8-16 or the Tokina 11-16:
> http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/533-samyang14f28eosapsc?start=1
> ...



I fell for the hype and bought one. I've never owned a lens that bad, my Canon 15mm FE that I bought used for $250 is far better.

Maybe I got a bad one, it was supposed to be a Full Frame lens, but the instruction manual said that the lens was optomised for crop camera bodies and not for FF.

I agree with them that that mine was lousy on FF

Here is a test image. Note that the left side is terrible, while the right side is OK.







A crop of the left side:






Canon 15mm FE focused on the same point a few minutes later. Note that it is actually wider, this is true for all fisheye lenses and nothing to do with Canon vs Samyang.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 19, 2011)

My standard wa lens is a TSE-24II on my 5DII. So, so sharp


----------



## Granamere (Oct 19, 2011)

Sorry I was trying to repost a post I had made at another website awhile back. Epic Fail 

Here are the links.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_10-20_vs_canon_tamron_tokina.htm

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/sigma-10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm-for-canon


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 20, 2011)

If you want a true wide angle on an aps-c go for the tokina. It's built like a brick, f/2.8 all the way through and it's cheaper than the 10-22. 10-22 is a great lens but the tokina feels much more solid.


----------

