# best wide or ultra wide angle lens for crop sensorh



## houston1852 (Aug 16, 2012)

Hi, I'm finally ready to add a wide angle lens to my collection. I mainly want it for landscapes, inside historic houses, and some closeup work (flowers and things). I was thinking the canon 10-22 but I would love to hear opinions on this or other lenses.

Thank you


----------



## akiskev (Aug 16, 2012)

Canon 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 2.8. I find Tokina sharper. 
There is a version II of the 11-16 now. It came out this summer! I think it doesn't suffer from CA as much as I.

I wouldn't suggest the Sigma alternatives. Getting a good Sigma lens is like winning the lottery. Get a Sigma ONLY if you can test the actual lens before purchase. 8-16 or 10-20 3.5.


----------



## extremeinstability (Aug 16, 2012)

I hear the Tokina 11-16 is as sharp or sharper than the Canon 10-22(my 10-22 is damn sharp), it is for sure faster and evidently built better. I would make the jump to it if it didn't flare when pointed at light sources. I shoot a lot at night and the 17-40L I had was annoying enough with flare. You can fix CA and even sharpness easier than strong flaring. I would have jumped to the Tokina long ago if it didn't flare. Perhaps this new version which I know nothing about has fixed the flaring. From what I've seen with the first version you can count on sharp vivid green flares. The 10-22 has always been pretty amazing to me in this regard. Point the thing at the sun and not even get much of a flare anywhere.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 16, 2012)

extremeinstability said:


> I hear the Tokina 11-16 is as sharp or sharper than the Canon 10-22(my 10-22 is damn sharp), it is for sure faster and evidently built better.


Having used both, I'd say the Tokina is built better, and is obviously faster, but I can't really say it's sharper. Plus, it has half the range. If you were doing video work, or were always going to be shooting in low-light, I'd have suggested the Tokina. Otherwise, get the Canon 10-22, as its more versatile, and as mentioned, the flare handling is better. Especially since price wise they are very similar.

Also, the 10-22 can focus slightly closer (9" v 12"), so for that specific purpose its better. You will likely find the distortion of both to be a little frustrating for shooting historic buildings, but, that's the nature of any wide angle lens.


----------



## danjwark (Aug 16, 2012)

I ended up going with the Sigma EX 10-20 f4-5.6. I had read horror stories about Sigma's quality control. However, after shooting with it only a short time, I realized that they are not all bad lenses - well not mine at least! I have tried both the canon 10-22 and the Tokina 12-24 and I have found my Sigma is sharper than either of the other copies I tried. As well, mine seems to have little to no CA. So, your mileage may vary but I have been extremely pleased with mine.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 16, 2012)

houston1852 said:


> Hi, I'm finally ready to add a wide angle lens to my collection. I mainly want it for landscapes, inside historic houses, and some closeup work (flowers and things). I was thinking the canon 10-22 but I would love to hear opinions on this or other lenses.
> 
> Thank you



There are 3 lenses I would get, if I ever go back to crop:

1. 10-22
2. 17-55 f2.8 IS
3. 70-200 f2.8 IS II


----------



## picturesbyme (Aug 16, 2012)

I'm very happy with my Sigma 8-16mm. 
About 12.8 to 25.6? That's pretty wide and the build and image quality on mine is just great.
Sure, it's true that the QC isn't the very best at Sigma - I had issues with my 50mm 1.4 once - but you can run into that in every other company, including Canon.

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


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 16, 2012)

ef-s 10-22, L quality glass, regular build. Price isn't exactly low but a refurb is 687 USD.

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


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 16, 2012)

Tokina 11-16mm. It has a very solid build as well, it's cheaper than the 10-22 and is f/2.8 throughout. Doesn't have as much reach, but the variable aperture was a deal breaker for me when I was on APSC.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 16, 2012)

The 10-22 is a very good lens and is the crop camera's equivalent to a FF 16-35. For crop ultrawides, it's really a pick between the 10-22, the Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 8-16. All three are good choices, and each has it's strengths. If you want the widest, get the Sigma. If you want the largest aperture and the sharpest corners, get the Tokina. If you want an all around good performer, get the Canon. The Tokina has a larger aperture and is a little sharper at the edges than the Canon, but it's focal length range is limited. The Tokina tends to be favored for architecture. I find the overlap range (15 to 17-22 mm) really handy because it minimizes lens swaps. To to take a picture of a room or a scenic vista, use the 10mm. To take a group picture, use the 22mm range. The 10-22 also has the largest maximum magnification ratio of 0.17 compared to Tokina's 0.09 and Sigma's 0.13, which helps for closeup shots.


----------



## Wilmark (Aug 16, 2012)

This is a no brainier. If its one non canon lens thats worth its salt to the cropped crowd its that tokina. Unfortunately you have to keep it at 16 on the FF and you get some vignetting. But overall its great and its more solidly built than most L lenses.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Aug 16, 2012)

I've used the Tokina 11-16 and the canon 10-22. The canon is much better in my opinion. Also, 10mm vs 11mm is a much bigger difference than you might think.

However, the Tokina is still a really nice lens.


----------



## akiskev (Aug 16, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> I've used the Tokina 11-16 and the canon 10-22. The canon is much better in my opinion.


In what way?


----------



## KingBen (Aug 16, 2012)

I've got a 8-16 and would recommend it. Compares well with 17-55 for centre sharpness and solid enough. No focus issues on a 7D as the smaller aperture and wide angle means virtually everything is in focus anyway. Went through same decision with Tokina and 10-22 and no regrets as I wanted wide as possible, plus I'm happy to frame (a lot) tighter with 17-55 or 30 1.4 when the light fades. If I'd intended on more light limited handheld shots would probably have gone with the Tokina, and I guess the 10-22 sits in the middle. Your choice is a trade off between aperture and how wide you can go although the Sigma takes up a lot less space in your bag than the 10-22 with hood, but the 8-16 won't take filters easily!


----------



## keithfullermusic (Aug 17, 2012)

akiskev said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > I've used the Tokina 11-16 and the canon 10-22. The canon is much better in my opinion.
> ...



my images just looked sharper with the canon, and with landscape shots its much more noticeable.


----------



## rt (Aug 17, 2012)

I have the EF-S 10-22mm and I wholeheartedly recommend it. It is an excellent lens.

Never used the Tokina 11-16 so I can't comment.


----------



## M.ST (Aug 17, 2012)

Buy the Canon EF-S 10-22 lens.


----------



## marekjoz (Aug 17, 2012)

17-40 on a crop is not wide, so I don't recommend it.


----------



## pwp (Aug 17, 2012)

houston1852 said:


> Hi, I'm finally ready to add a wide angle lens to my collection. I mainly want it for landscapes, inside historic houses, and some closeup work (flowers and things). I was thinking the canon 10-22 but I would love to hear opinions on this or other lenses.


The Canon EF-S 10-22mm will deliver L grade performance in a EF-S mount. For the subject matter you are describing, the premium IQ of the Canon will make it a more satisfying experience than the Tokina. For your planned closeup work, it's worthwhile noting that the Canon has an appreciably closer minimum focus distance.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Tested Min Focus Distance (Wide / Long) 8.9” / 8.82”

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tokina-11-16mm-f-2.8-AT-X-Pro-DX-Lens-Review.aspx
Tested Min Focus Distance (Wide / Long) 11.89” / 12.28”

-PW


----------



## Steve Campbell (Aug 17, 2012)

I have only used the 10-22, but it lived on the cameras I had at the time (Xsi and 60D). It's a very nice lens and there are no problems with the build quality. I switched to full frame eventually and picked up a 17-40, but there isn't much difference in those two lenses.


----------



## Menace (Aug 17, 2012)

Go with the EFs 10-22 for the crop sensor camera


----------



## Eimajm (Aug 17, 2012)

I have the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC HSM which I find an excellent lens, it really is sharp and well built. The Canon is 60% more expensive than the Sigma here in the UK and from comparing images is I didn't think was worth the extra cost. It's my only third party lens but is no way inferior to my Canon lenses.


----------



## chauncey (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm sorry but, I cannot understand the fascination with WA lenses. 
A quick look at the MTF characteristics shows their inadequacies.
Using any of the photomerge techniques, IMHO, offers a much superior image.


----------



## AJ (Aug 17, 2012)

Another happy Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 user here. My copy is sharp corner-to-corner. This lens delivers again and again. I've never tested it against Canon 10-22. I'm sure the Canon is at least as good. Bottom line: there are some great choices, and it's hard to go wrong with any of these lenses.


----------



## preppyak (Aug 17, 2012)

chauncey said:


> Using any of the photomerge techniques, IMHO, offers a much superior image.


Except photomerging takes times, and if you are including anything in the scene that moves (wildlife, water, etc), its a big pain to deal with. I'd rather know exactly what my image is going to look like than hope I nailed my photo merges later. Plus, there are some things you can do with the distortion that photo merging can't really match.

The only way I'd agree with you is if we were talking a T/S lens and using it to do the photomerges. But, that's $2k+ I don't have.



keithfullermusic said:


> my images just looked sharper with the canon, and with landscape shots its much more noticeable.


Weird, I didn't see any difference. I preferred the Canon's autofocus, as I find the Tokina to be slow, but, it's rare that I'm actually using AF in my landscape scenes.

I thought the Tokina had an easier distortion to correct, while the Canon flared less. Both were sharp and great, can't go wrong with either


----------



## crasher8 (Aug 18, 2012)

An UWA isn't something to drool and spew over, as in fascination, but a good tool in the lens toolbox. PP only takes the photographer out of the equation and makes you a computer manipulator. Not why I pick up a camera.


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 18, 2012)

Add in another vote for the Sigma 8-16mm.

Basically, there's 3 Ultrawides worth looking at:
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Get this for indoors, or where you need fast-shutter or low-light. Apparently bad CA (which can be removed in PP if you really want. the mk2 version will allegedly be out this year, with Tokina themselves acknowledging the CA and promising the mk2 will get be better)
Sigma 8-16 f/(we may as well call it a constant f/5.6). Use it outdoors or on a tripod, don't even think about indoors. Widest framing you'll get on any format (shared with the sigma 12-24s on FF).
Canon 10-22. Bit of a compromise between the two, good IQ and medium aperture.

The canon goes for $7-800 on ebay, lucky if you can get one for $600. The Sigma and Tokina go for $5-600, I got my sigma for $475. Yes, there's other versions (2 more sigmas and a tamron), don't bother unless you want to save money (although i'd consider the tamron 'wasting' money, not saving).
The Tokina and Canon you can put filters on, Sigma not (although I do plan on trying with some 4x6 filters when I can afford them.
The canon you can't put on FF, the Tokina I don't know, but the sigma i've taken shots on FF at 15-16mm (when the hood is *just* out of the frame).


As for stitching: been there, done that, got the Ninja. It's really annoying when clouds move and trees shake, which seems to be every frickin time I try to stitch. It also mucks your exposures a lot, and I've had one case of white balance being completely thrown out from flare washing out one frame.
If you like PP, fine, go ahead. But i'm kinda over it...


----------

