Canon EF-S 10-22mm or Sigma 8-16mm

midville

midville

midville

Associate
Joined
24 Jan 2005
Posts
295
Location
North Yorkshire
Guys,

I am torn between these two - price wise they are about the same has anyone use both of these if so any comments would be either way would be appreciated?

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens or Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM

Thanks in advance
 
Tokina 11-16?

Tokina lenses are built like tanks and very sharp. It's also faster which depending on what you want it for may be a better bet.
 
I looked into this a while ago and all of them are great but for me the Canon just nosed it. The range of it won me over and its a cracking lens, lots of fun from low down.
 
If you go with the Canon i'd recommend John Lewis as you get a 2 year warranty with them and they're matching the rain forest price of £499 + Canon £40cb.
 
I'm about to list my Tokina 12-24mm and it will be way less than 1/2 the cost of the Canon.

Did a lot of research and the Tokina offered the best quality vs value out there.
 
I've got the Tokina 12-24mm f4 and its far and away my favourite lens, its permanently fixed to my D7000 when I'm out doing landscapes.
 
The 12-24 is awesome yep. My favourite lens when I had my 400D. I'm erring towards the 11-16 for my Nikon fit lens now though, mainly because the extra stop will be very useful when shooting starscapes, that extra mm would be useful sometimes as well.
 
Sh4rkie said:
If you go with the Canon i'd recommend John Lewis as you get a 2 year warranty with them and they're matching the rain forest price of £499 + Canon £40cb.
Click to expand...

i think im going to do this this week, i only have a couple of lenses and have been looking at the same lens type for some of the things i want to do

reading that the sigma cant take filters natively i think i will go for the canon. Im sure i will need to use an ND filter for what i want

going to be using this for night work initially
 
im personaly trying to work out if the canons extra 1mm at bottom and extra 6mm at top reach is worth £70 more than the tokina
 
Guys, thanks for your comments did a lot of pondering and I went for Canon EF 17 40mm f/4.0L USM Standard Lens. My logic was; not as wide but maybe something I would use more often.

Have to wait and see hopefully its is a good choice and maybe next time go ultra wide.......
 
i cant decide between the tokina or the canon, discussions seem to favour the tokina actually except for potential of flare

its not about cost for me which makes this a toughie
 
i think i have now read ebery main discussion on google since the dx ii version was released and may have to flip a coin

it comes down to me for the 1mm extra on the canon or the extra 1/2 stop on the tok
and also the flare issues on the tok

i imagine i will be doing mostly night light trails, scenes with light sources and other creative things with this lens, what i am not sure about is if i will do any astro stuff requiring the extra 1/2 stop.
Other likely scenarios might be in buildings where 1/2 stop again may be useful and landscapes with long exposures where it wouldnt and the extra 1mm might be benificial! Then any scenes where there are strong light sources the canons reduced lens flare is a benefit!

cost of the tokina is 385
cost of the canon is 435 after 40 rebate and 5% cashback from cc card
 
Last edited:
al4x said:
i think i have now read ebery main discussion on google since the dx ii version was released and may have to flip a coin

it comes down to me for the 1mm extra on the canon or the extra 1/2 stop on the tok
and also the flare issues on the tok

i imagine i will be doing mostly night light trails, scenes with light sources and other creative things with this lens, what i am not sure about is if i will do any astro stuff requiring the extra 1/2 stop.
Other likely scenarios might be in buildings where 1/2 stop again may be useful and landscapes with long exposures
Click to expand...



For astro stuff you rarely use the lens wide open since you want maximum sharpness (and getting focus right is a pain, so a little more DoF helps).

Same with the light trails, you will need sufficient DoF for the scene, so you will be stopped down to at least f/11 anyway. Same with landscape.

And really, most of these type of photography you are on a tripod as well.


The wider aperture of the tokina is more useful for indoor hand held work, (for indoor architecture/still life you are on a tripod stopped down). This means things like clubs, weddings. Also for some things like skateboarding is nice to go really wide but at the same time have a fast shutter speed.


So personally I don't feel the need for the extra stops on the UWA lenses. It ass no value for any of the work I do.

For me it comes down to the Sigma 8-16mm vs Canon 10-22mm. A very nice, very sharp, wider than wide very specialized tool, or a a still very wide but more versatile walkabout. With the 10-24mm type range it pairs perfectly with something like a 70-200 as a 2 lens walkabout kit. With an 8-16 (and the same goes for the Tokina 11-16mm) I would probably want to bring in something longer like a 17-55 to cover the 16-24mm end.


But it all depends on what you like to shoot. I'm just saying that for many types of photography when an ultra wide is handy you don't need a wider aperture because you are topped down to f/13 on a a tripod.
 
D.P. said:
For astro stuff you rarely use the lens wide open since you want maximum sharpness (and getting focus right is a pain, so a little more DoF helps).

Same with the light trails, you will need sufficient DoF for the scene, so you will be stopped down to at least f/11 anyway. Same with landscape.

And really, most of these type of photography you are on a tripod as well.


The wider aperture of the tokina is more useful for indoor hand held work, (for indoor architecture/still life you are on a tripod stopped down). This means things like clubs, weddings. Also for some things like skateboarding is nice to go really wide but at the same time have a fast shutter speed.


So personally I don't feel the need for the extra stops on the UWA lenses. It ass no value for any of the work I do.

For me it comes down to the Sigma 8-16mm vs Canon 10-22mm. A very nice, very sharp, wider than wide very specialized tool, or a a still very wide but more versatile walkabout. With the 10-24mm type range it pairs perfectly with something like a 70-200 as a 2 lens walkabout kit. With an 8-16 (and the same goes for the Tokina 11-16mm) I would probably want to bring in something longer like a 17-55 to cover the 16-24mm end.


But it all depends on what you like to shoot. I'm just saying that for many types of photography when an ultra wide is handy you don't need a wider aperture because you are topped down to f/13 on a a tripod.
Click to expand...

Was hoping you would comment DP

the only place i could see for the 1/2 stop is for stars where you dont want star trails, but this is unique.
I agree for most of the time i would be using a tripod, especially anything outside and low light, the one noticable time i may not would be in public buildings.
Would the wide aperture cause you to loose to much Dof though?

i didnt read much about the sigma 8mm but did see it mentioned. i would consider it but read it is usually used at 10 due to increasing issues at 8mm?

edit, i keep forgetting the 8mm does not accept filters. thats a deal breaker i think
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom