# Is An UWA Lens Useful on a Crop Sensor?



## Cory (May 8, 2013)

After stewing to upgrade to FF or not I've decided to stick with my trusty old T1i. Not to brag, but I really get some great pics. 2 even ended up on our local TV station the other day as a backdrop when there's nothing on.
I've got a Sigma 17-50, Canon 100 2.0 and Canon 200 2.8 II. I use the primes for sports and the normal zoom for everything else. There are times when I could use a little more width, but nothing that's a deal breaker. 
So, of course, an UWA would help a little there, but in general is an UWA lens a good thing to have for getting more in and also for the distorted UWA look when getting up close? Is it something that many enjoy having and using?
Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2013)

I found my EF-S 10-22mm to be very useful on APS-C. When I moved to FF, I got the 16-35L II - recapitulates the same AoV and has a constant f/2.8 that's useful for evenings and interiors. 

Basically, only you can decide if wider than 17mm would be useful to you. Maybe pick up a used APS-C UWA zoom...


----------



## Random Orbits (May 9, 2013)

I like it. I don't use it that much percentagewise, but I'm glad to have it when I do want those attributes. I tend to use it more traveling, for indoor shots (esp. during the holidays when everything is decorated) and when I want to emphasize a foreground subject while giving a environmental background. You'll have to think about shots/perspective differently, but isn't that part of the fun?


----------



## Vossie (May 9, 2013)

On my old 30D I used the 10-22 really a lot, more often than I use my current 16-35 on the 5D3.

The 10-22 is really a good lens and yes I think it's useful.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 9, 2013)

The 10-22mm is a lens that I missed when I moved to FF. Nothing quite as distortion-less from canon yet...


----------



## Cory (May 10, 2013)

Is it OK, then, to turn this into a Tokina 11-16 vs Canon 10-22 thread? It'll likely be a mix of indoors, landscape, outdoor buildings, large group shots and experimenting.
Thanks again.


----------



## sootzzs (May 10, 2013)

Cory said:


> Is it OK, then, to turn this into a Tokina 11-16 vs Canon 10-22 thread? It'll likely be a mix of indoors, landscape, outdoor buildings, large group shots and experimenting.
> Thanks again.



Hi Cory,
I am actually debating just the same exact question. Sigma's UWAs also seem as a very good deal (and almost 40% cheaper, the 10-20 4-5.6 at least). In my case I have the EF-S 15-85 and wonder is it worth to spend extra money on UWA? Why not just stitch to pics with higher final resolution? For distortion: did you considered the Samyang 8mm? It is dirt cheap (less than 300$) and have really good reviews. I've seen some fabulous landscapes taken with it and at the right angle and composition you barely see the distortion of it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2013)

From an IQ standpoint, the Canon 10-22mm, Tokina 11-16mm, and Sigma 8-16mm are similar (all very good). The Tokina has the least range but f/2.8, the Sigma is widest but slowest, the Canon has the broadest range and is in the middle for speed.


----------



## Cory (May 10, 2013)

Thanks. Maybe the Tokina, then, for the match with my 17-50 Sigma and same 77mm filters (polarizing and ND).


----------



## Random Orbits (May 10, 2013)

Cory, take a look at how much you use your 17-55 between 17-22. When I had the Canon 10-22, I liked that it overlapped the midrange zoom a bit -- it really cuts down on the lens changes. At a 35mm FF-equivalent angle of view, it worked well for environmental people pics while still giving you the 16mm equivalent angle of view for the scenic, artistic shot.


----------



## sdsr (May 10, 2013)

Can you rent one where you are? If you can, try the Sigma 8-16, which is the widest of the lot and performs well (though not being able to attach a protective filter is a trifle alarming), and judge for yourself. Sure, you can use it to "get it all in" but to these eyes the results seldom look good unless you're photographing a cramped interior space - outdoors, if you try to "get it all in" you'll likely end up with vast amounts of boring empty foreground. The main point of these lenses is the fun you can have playing with the distortions they create. See here, for instance (you may already know all this, of course):

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/wide-angle-lenses.htm

You may find that after the initial new toy excitement wears off these special effects seem a bit gimmicky and lose their appeal; or you may decide that you like the effects but that 8mm is too extreme and 11-12 is enough; etc. Chances are you'll enjoy finding out....


----------



## Drum (May 10, 2013)

I have the Sigma 8-16, I find it has a novelty value in different things , like fun portraits and the obvious landscape shots too, but I'm still working on it as regards to getting my angles right and stuff, you really have to think about what you are doing with it or the shots are boring both the shots here are taken with the 8mm you get the Idea with them. (I had just got the lens when we went on holiday to Paris these shots are from Versailles, the Idea is there but maybe not the execution of it.....!!) btw neither is post processed.


----------



## Leejo (May 10, 2013)

> Is it OK, then, to turn this into a Tokina 11-16 vs Canon 10-22 thread? It'll likely be a mix of indoors, landscape, outdoor buildings, large group shots and experimenting.


I have the canon 15-85mm as well. Can't yet afford a FullFrame and still waiting for excellent WA zooms there
(OK 14mm + 16-35 would be a great combo)
I went for the Sigma after reading a review or two. Most revealing was the combined reviews at http://www.the-digital-picture.com

The reason for my choice - nmy personal travel photography, capturing the inside of some buildings, especially churches, without the effort of stitching etc. Yes it's slower, but I'd rather rest it for one shot - bracketed or multiple shots if I am worried that I may shake, as oppose to worrying about lining up shots for stitching.

For what you list, and having the 15-85 already, I wouldn't necessarily think that the Sigma is the best.
(Plus no easy filter fixing) The Tokina has slightly more CA than the others. The Canon will probably hold it's value longer. Prices are similar enough not to get too hung up on the difference. Otherwise from your list
Indoors - unless you need extremes (Sigma) then the Tokina at f2.8
Landscape - equally good - Canon might edge it due to a mm wider and less CA
Outdoor Buildings - Canon edge as above
Large Groups Shots - all OK.
Experimenting - Sigma for the angle - (Tokina for the f2.8)

You pays your money you takes your choice...


----------



## silversurfer96 (May 10, 2013)

I love the Canon 10-22 on my 7D. Really it is one of the reason why I am still keeping the 7D after upgrading to FF last year. I took both my 7D and 5D3 to Hearst Castle two weekend ago and most of my shots were done with the 10-22. That place was a beauty. I have not tried the 16-35 yet.


----------



## bholliman (May 10, 2013)

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm is a great UWA lens option for a crop sensor camera. I do not currently own one (sold it last year), but did when my 7D was my primary camera.

When I only shot APS-C, I used my 15-85 95% of the time and a EF-S 55-250mm and EF-S 10-22mm the other 5%.


----------

