# Ultra-Wide options for APS-C Body



## HaveVoid (Jun 19, 2012)

Hey Guys,

I just got word that on my next assignment I may get a fairly unique photographic opportunity that will likely require a wider Field of View than can be accomplished with my 28-135 + 7D combination. I am looking to rent something on the wider end, not a fisheye, and wondered if anyone could offer some suggestions and experiences with the various offerings in this size bracket?

So Far I've come across the EF-S 10-22, the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 EX, and the Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 DI-II LD.


I'd greatly appreciate y'alls input!


HaveVoid


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 19, 2012)

How wide and how large the max aperture? The EF-S 10-22 is a good general use lens - I've used it and it works well. If you need something faster, you might want to look at the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. If you want something wider, Sigma makes a 8-16mm.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 19, 2012)

10-22 is a awesome lens. Very sharp and almost no distortion. Canon lenses hold there value better also


----------



## HaveVoid (Jun 19, 2012)

Thank you both for the quick replies! I am less concerned about the max aperture, as this will be a daylight shoot in the American Southwest, so light will be more than abundant. As for Brand and resale value, as this will be a rental and not a purchase more likely, I would be more than willing to go 3rd party. In terms of just how wide do I want to go, I would prefer to be sub-17mm (which rules out the oh so popular 14-40L)



HV


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2012)

The Canon 10-22mm, Tokina 11-16mm, and Sigma 8-16mm are all optically very good.


----------



## Pitbullo (Jun 19, 2012)

All lenses mentioned are good options from what I`ve heard. I bought the sigma 8-16 last week, and it rocks! Very very wide, and amazingly sharp. The reason I bought this instead of the alternatives, is that it is the widest. If you are gonna be a bear, be a grizzly! 

The only downside with the 8-16mm is that it does not take filters, and it is APS-C only.


----------



## Wideopen (Jun 20, 2012)

Pitbullo said:


> All lenses mentioned are good options from what I`ve heard. I bought the sigma 8-16 last week, and it rocks! Very very wide, and amazingly sharp. The reason I bought this instead of the alternatives, is that it is the widest. If you are gonna be a bear, be a grizzly!
> 
> The only downside with the 8-16mm is that it does not take filters, and it is APS-C only.



+1 I love my sigma 8-16 + 7D combo especially for landscape pix and vids. Super wide. I actually use it on my FF 5dmarkiii also but only at 16mm anything less and you'll get really bad vinetting.


----------



## katwil (Jun 21, 2012)

Wideopen said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > All lenses mentioned are good options from what I`ve heard. I bought the sigma 8-16 last week, and it rocks! Very very wide, and amazingly sharp. The reason I bought this instead of the alternatives, is that it is the widest. If you are gonna be a bear, be a grizzly!
> ...



Another +1 for the Sigma 8-16.


----------



## akiskev (Jun 21, 2012)

Canon 10-22 and Tokina 11-16 are both great, as I everybody says. Personally I'd choose Tokina, because I like its 2.8 constant aperture. If you get Tokina, keep in mind that you need to make an extra click in post processing. "Remove Chromatic Aberration" that is 
IMHO stay away from the Sigmas (quality control that sucks beyond belief). Tamron 10-24 is a very mediocre lens.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 21, 2012)

HaveVoid said:


> Thank you both for the quick replies! I am less concerned about the max aperture, as this will be a daylight shoot in the American Southwest, so light will be more than abundant.


Based on that, I'd go with the 10-22. The 10-22 will be more resistant to flare, it will handle distortion a little better, and it gives you double the range. Only reason I'd go with the Tokina for your purposes is if you are also shooting video with it, in which case the flare it produces can actually be quite nice.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 21, 2012)

At various points I've owned a sigma 10-20, sigma 12-24 and currently a tokina 11-16.

Sigma 10-20 was great but had to filtered carefully to avoid vignetting, nice lens, compact, cheapish if you go for the f4-5.6 version.

I used it on a 400d and recall little fringing, sharpish corners etc.

I got an Eos3 film camera and so wanted a ff lens, i got the 12-24, which i loved on my eos 3 and liked well enough on my 7d, it was an extreme lens with major caveats, filtering being the most obvious, and its expensive in mk2 guise. A no brainer for ff uwa users, didn't make as much sense on aps-c

Finslly, my current uwa, the tokina 11-16. I needed the f2.8 for video use, which makes it the only lens of its kind for my 7d and 600d, pricier, you will need to defringe in PS now and then, but a sharp lens with even illumination. AF not fast, but on this fl doesnt need to be.


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 22, 2012)

My choice would be between these two great lenses:

* Tokina 11-16 f/2.8: extremely sharp, and with nearly no distortion. Only works on APS-C
* Samyang 14mm f/2.8: on APS-C, extremely sharp too, but with some distortion. It works on FF, but then it's quite soft in the corners and the distortion is ugly mustache type. Only manual focus.

The Samyang is half the price of the Tokina, and its only drawback (apart from the "manual focus only", which is not a problem for me but may be for others) is the distortion.

BUT

This distortion thing is quite relative.
The usual way of measuring distortion is designed for architecture. With the Tokina, buildings will look great, but with the Samyang you'll see some curved lines.
But this "non barrel distortion" thing creates distortion when you're shooting faces instead of buildings: with the Samyang, people will look great, but with the Tokina their faces will look stretched.

Check tests here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?281994-I-need-a-cheap-wide-angle-lens-Recommendations
And more info here: http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html


----------



## LikeBreathing (Jun 25, 2012)

Another vote for the Canon 10-22, simply superb!


----------



## iaind (Jun 25, 2012)

LikeBreathing said:


> Another vote for the Canon 10-22, simply superb!



+1


----------



## cszy67 (Jun 27, 2012)

My father shoots a Canon 10-22 and my younger brother a Tamron 10-24 and there is no comparison: the Canon 10-22 is much better by most every measure.


----------

