# Buying third party lenses, and which wide angle do you recommend?



## kadadj (Mar 9, 2012)

I'm buying a 7D soon, and I'm trying to figure out what lenses I should buy. How good are really the third party lenses? I'm looking at wide angles, and some of the prices of the sigmas seem to good to be true. Should I go with a canon lens, which costs much more, or should I buy a third party lens?
Also, what wide angles do you guys recommend? I have never had one, so I have no idea what I should choose. I will be using it as a cool portrait lens, and for landscapes.
I want an extreme wide angle around 10mm, but as I said, I'm really clueless as to which one I should buy.


----------



## mjp (Mar 9, 2012)

I own the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and have enjoyed it thus far, and use it often on my 7D. I have had no issues with either the quality of photos taken with it or the build which is strong and sturdy. The f2.8 can sometimes come in handy in low light and I really like manual focusing this lens (the auto focus works great, too). That said, I am sure you would be happy with the Canon or Sigma as well. I have not used them, but have read good reviews.


----------



## crasher7 (Mar 9, 2012)

I have the 10-22 and I think on the 7D you can't get a better combo for an UWA lens. However I am searching for the right wide prime which I can also use on my Elan 7. I have owned the 35 f/2 before and while awesome on the film body it was always seeking on my digi. Plus the 56 (1.6x) FL wasn't doing me anything I didn't already have with a higher quality faster lens. I'm thinking I should look for a deal on a 28 1.8 because I'm done with the non USM Canon's and even though the Sigma 30 1.4 is raved about I want it on film as well. I think the EF 28 1.8 is the way to go. 44.8 FL is sweet for Street and indoors.


----------



## Joellll (Mar 9, 2012)

Tokina 11-16mm user here!

It's a great lens with great quality (or maybe just a great copy), the fact that it has a low maximum magnification limits the creativity value of this lens, but the constant f/2.8 is not rivalled by Sigma or Canon.

In case you're going to shoot videos too, the Tokina is parfocal, unlike other alternatives.

Question though, I am going full frame soon. Can someone share their experiences of 3rd party crop UWA on FF?


----------



## rocketdesigner (Mar 9, 2012)

I agree the Tok/11-16 is a great choice for the 7D ... just don't expect to use it on a FF sensor camera. :-\


----------



## unfocused (Mar 9, 2012)

I am also a Tokina 11-16 owner and recommend it. But, from almost every review or comment I've seen, this is a case where you can't go wrong with any of the three popular choices: Tokina, Canon or Sigma. 

As far as third-party lenses in general, I would say that you need to research the individual lenses. Some are excellent, some not so much. In the old days, you could pretty much be assured that if Canon or Nikon put their name on a lens it would be great. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case. Both have made low-end lenses that are less than great. (Although some of the low-cost lenses are pretty amazing values, such as the EF-S 55-250mm which is incredibly sharp, although not the sturdiest build).

With other third party lenses, I'd suggest you do the same as you are doing with the wide-angle, pick the focal length you are interested in and then read reviews to find the best value.


----------



## jwong (Mar 9, 2012)

I have the Canon 10-22, and I like it a lot. It came out before most (all?) of the 3rd party lenses, and it still holds its own IQ-wise. 10 to 22mm is a nice range and overlaps the 17-55, which I like a lot because it minimizes lens swaps. It's equivalent to 16-35mm on FF whereas the Tokina 11-16 goes from 18-26mm. The Canon is a little slower than the Tokina but the difference in speed is not that significant. UWAs are easy to handhold, and subject motion blur is more of an issue at these focal lengths. DOFs tend to be large, so good subject/background isolation with UWAs is difficult even at f/2.8. The Canon max magnification is almost twice that of the Tokina (0.17x vs. 0.09x), which helps in emphasizing a foreground object against the background.

Ultimately, you really can't go wrong with any of the choices. The Tokina is the fastest while giving the narrowest focal length range; Sigmas go even wider, but are slower; and Canon falls somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 9, 2012)

The issue I have with third party lenses is that they have reverse engineered the Canon autofocus and aperture firmware in the lens, and there is no guarantee that your lens will work with the next new Canon DSLR.

This was brought home to me, when four Sigma Autofocus and EOS lenses wouuld not work on my Canon DSLR. Sigma charged me $100 to fix my 105mm Macro, but they did not have upgrades for the other three. The lenses could not be used manually either, because there was no aperture control. So, a lot of money was tossed out and taught me what can happen.

Tokina does seem to make high quality wide lenses, I prefer Tokina to the other third party brands, but they also have had lenses that won't AF on Canon DSLR's.

Beware of older Sigma lenses, many are Canon EOS compatible but do not work on Canon DSLR's and cannot be upgraded.


----------



## AJ (Mar 9, 2012)

I own a Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 and I'm quite happy with it. It's a sharp lens with no real weaknesses, except perhaps for the fact that it's slow. Usually the narrow aperture is not a problem because I'm shooting landscapes stopped down, but there are times where an extra stop or two would come in handy. Flare is okay, distortions are not bad, c/a are manageable, colors are good, AF is competent, build is very good.

At the time when I bought it, the Sigma was much cheaper than the Canon. Now the price gap has narrowed, and faced with the same decision I might pop for the Canon. But I'm not switching - I've got a good lens that's serving me well.


----------



## iaind (Mar 9, 2012)

Best bet is to stick with Canon for future compatability. As the man says you pay your money and take your choice. Found no problems with either 10-22 EFs or 17-35L


----------



## crasher7 (Mar 9, 2012)

If I'm using my UWA in a low light situation then it's a tripod situation. Personally having a Canon 10-22 at 2.8 would not be more appealing than how it actually is. I just can't see getting a 6mm range lens. Coming from a Sigma 10-20 to the Canon was a huge leap in IQ. So after using two of three of the main crop UWA's I think if you aren't willing to save a bit more and get the Canon you drip a lot of justifying tears in your cup of buyers remorse.


----------



## jcollett (Mar 9, 2012)

If you do go FF, a consideration should be put to the Tamron AF 17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF). It is discontinued, so you would need to find one on eBay or Craigslist. I found one for $200 and has performed well for me.


----------



## ew20 (Mar 9, 2012)

You'll get what you pay for with wide angle. Sigmas/Tokinas will be Good, the 10-22 and 17-40 a bit better, and the higher end Canon primes and Zeiss a noticeable step above those. 

FF is preferable for wide angle, but more expensive glass is needed as weaker lenses will be exposed around the edges. If you are set on crop and want UWA, the Canon 10-22 will be your best option. But if you are thinking 3rd party and find something you like, don't worry about AF all that much. Manual focus is preferable and easy to use at very wide angles.


----------



## AJ (Mar 9, 2012)

There are good comparative reviews of all these crop ultrawides at the-digital-picture.

About Tokina 11-16. Tokina just announced a version 2 of this lens which is supposed to have improved coatings and a better focus motor. It might be worth waiting for if you're interested in this lens. On the other hand they may jack up the price.


----------



## scotthillphoto (Mar 9, 2012)

Personally I have the sigma 10-20 3.5 the only reason I went with that instead of the canon version was for the 3.5 all the way through. It is a little cheaper and at 10mm you can see some image flare, but at 10mm I want some of it. I also own the sigma 30 1.4 with is a great lens and those are the only two non-canon lenses I own and will probably be it for me... Since the new 5D FINALLY came out.... Sigma is a good overall brand just do extensive test's when you first get the lenses to verify you have a good copy.


----------



## kadadj (Mar 10, 2012)

Thanks everyone! I think I will go with the Canon 10-20 =)


----------



## 00Q (Mar 10, 2012)

Your choices are the following:

1)Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6
2)Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5
4)Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6
5)Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
6)Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
7) Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5
8) Tokina 12-24mm f/4

Wow, yes indeed a lot of lenses. Now you need to ask yourself if you need to shoot in low light. If you do wide angle stage work and concerts, get the Tokina, that is the fastest lens. 

If you want purely lanscapes then you will have it on a tripod half the time, in which case speed shouldnt matter too much. Thats why most wide angles are not fast. So get the top choices then are the CAnon 10-22 and the sigma 8-16. The canon is very crisp and the sigma is on par with the canon in terms of sharpness. There is a bit of barrel distortion at the widest 8mm end. But it is the widest ultra wide angle out there. and I recommend it to you. 

I have had the sigma 10-20, sigma 8-16 and canon 10-22. The last two are brilliant. The canon is a bit more expensive due to branding. It is good optically but the build quality is poor, the sigma 8-16 is more solid. I always feel the 10-22 was going to break in half as it is so light and hollow inside. 

p.s. the other lenses cant match the optical quality. The tamron is especially poor. even the sigma 10-20 is really soft. I hated it.


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 10, 2012)

I'd recommend the Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6 or Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. the Sigma because of the 8mm end. You are buying an Ultra wide to shoot ultra wide. 8 MM is a whole lot wider than 10, or 11mm, and this lens gets good reviews. http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=31

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 would be my second choice for the build quality and f2.8.


----------



## picturesbyme (Mar 10, 2012)

+1 for Sigma 8-16.
I have it a while ago and love it


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 10, 2012)

ew20 said:


> FF is preferable for wide angle


What makes you say that? Is this just as in "ff is always preferable due to larger sensor size"? Afaik, one of the few advantages of aps-c is that it's easier to build uwa lenses, meaning that at the same price a ef-s lens will tend to have a higher iq than an ef lens. Thus, I cannot see how a uwa lens on a ff 5d1 will be preferable to one on a 7d.



Joellll said:


> Tokina 11-16mm user here! It's a great lens with great quality (or maybe just a great copy), the fact that it has a low maximum magnification limits the creativity value of this lens


Does the "low maximum magnification" mean the combination of focal length and min. focal distance? I have read complaints about this, but never quite understood it because on paper, the min. focal distance of the Tokina 11-16 seems to be about the same as the competitors?


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 10, 2012)

Tokina 11-16mm for sure, it's super wide and a lot of fun to use. But the Mark II is coming out next month, so you may want to wait and see where prices on the original go.


----------



## Cali_PH (Mar 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> What makes you say that? Is this just as in "ff is always preferable due to larger sensor size"? Afaik, one of the few advantages of aps-c is that it's easier to build uwa lenses, meaning that at the same price a ef-s lens will tend to have a higher iq than an ef lens. Thus, I cannot see how a uwa lens on a ff 5d1 will be preferable to one on a 7d



Interesting, I wasn't aware of that, but I'm relatively new to photography. I use a T2i and 60D with a Canon 10-22mm...are you saying it's possible the IQ will be near, or perhaps better, than a 5Dmk2 and say, 17-40mmL? I guess I may need to moderate my expectations if/when I move up to a FF camera.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 10, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Tokina 11-16mm for sure, it's super wide and a lot of fun to use. But the Mark II is coming out next month


... but only for Nikon mount, for Canon it's July. And at first, prices will be high, and then tend to drop for 3rd party manufacturers. I know because I'm waiting for it.



Cali_PH said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you say that? Is this just as in "ff is always preferable due to larger sensor size"?
> ...


I was talking about the 5d *mark1* which is ff but has lower mp than the current aps-c generation.

What I wanted to say is: It's easier to build an ultra wide lens for aps-c since due to smaller mirror size, the lens is nearer to the sensor than on full frame. This is only valid for ultrawide, on longer lenses it doesn't matter. So a full frame uwa lens needs more glass than the aps-c equivalent with the same coverage.

Result: Given a certain amount of money, an aps-c uwa lens built for that money will be better than a ff lens, since less good glass is better then more weaker glass. Mass production of the ff lens might reverse that of course, but it's a tendency why you'll see excellent reviews of uwa lenses on aps-c while reviews of uwa lenses on ff tend to be critic about (corner) sharpness.


----------



## Cali_PH (Mar 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I was talking about the 5d *mark1* which is ff but has lower mp than the current aps-c generation.
> 
> What I wanted to say is: It's easier to build an ultra wide lens for aps-c since due to smaller mirror size, the lens is nearer to the sensor than on full frame. This is only valid for ultrawide, on longer lenses it doesn't matter. So a full frame uwa lens needs more glass than the aps-c equivalent with the same coverage.
> 
> Result: Given a certain amount of money, an aps-c uwa lens built for that money will be better than a ff lens, since less good glass is better then more weaker glass. Mass production of the ff lens might reverse that of course, but it's a tendency why you'll see excellent reviews of uwa lenses on aps-c while reviews of uwa lenses on ff tend to be critic about (corner) sharpness.



Ah, I see, thanks for taking the time to explain it. Guess I got my first smite just for asking, haha. ;D


----------



## ew20 (Mar 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> What makes you say that? Is this just as in "ff is always preferable due to larger sensor size"? Afaik, one of the few advantages of aps-c is that it's easier to build uwa lenses, meaning that at the same price a ef-s lens will tend to have a higher iq than an ef lens. Thus, I cannot see how a uwa lens on a ff 5d1 will be preferable to one on a 7d.



The reason I say that is the best wide angle lenses out there are only wide on a FF camera. The 10-22 is a solid lens, but it's quality is nowhere near that of a wide L prime. Going with a FF 17-40L vs. a 10-22 crop will yield similar results, I would say the 10-22 crop is better actually because of less distortion. But FF opens a lot of high quality options for future upgrades whereas a crop does not.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 11, 2012)

picturesbyme said:


> +1 for Sigma 8-16. I have it a while ago and love it



The reason I'm hesitant to get the Sigma is that since it does not take filters, I am afraid to damage the lens glass when being outdoors. I am not in the habit of handling lenses like a raw egg, that's why I finally got an metal L lens for my tele shots :-o

Do you feel that the Sigma lens front could be easily damaged, since the hood on uwa lenses is rather small, too?


----------



## kadadj (Mar 11, 2012)

So I read trough the new responses and now I'm confused about what lens to get again. The Sigma 8-16 is tempting, though, I'm not sure if that will be too wide. A 2.8 aperture is also tempting. Ugh, I hate having a lot of choices without the ability to at least test out the lenses.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 12, 2012)

kadadj said:


> So I read trough the new responses and now I'm confused about what lens to get again.



I sympathize with your problem, because it's mine, too :-o ... Maybe this comparison review might help a little, but the gist is that there's not a clear choice and all lenses I'm thinking about (Canon, Tokina II, Sigma) have a crappy build quality and different issues (Canon: iq and crappy build quality, Tolkina: little max. magnification and zoom range is actually 12-15, Sigma: unprotected front and no filters)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------

