Canon EF-S 10-22mm vs. Tokina 11-16 f/2.8

Associate
Joined
5 Mar 2006
Posts
2,347
Location
Shropshire
Just weighing in the options between these 2, the price difference and build quality isn't that significant in my choosing and I'm reading:

Tokina is more flare prone
Tokina is better for low light (obviously)
Outdoors favour the Canon
Indoors, social gatherings, astrophotogrphy favour Tokina.

Obvious focal range differences, but I think I will use this mostly at the wide end. 1mm difference isn't that significant is it?

I'm a bit torn between the two, anything I missed?
 
If you want to shoot indoors or at night get Tokina, otherwise get the Canon...I used to have the Tokina and it was great.
 
Just weighing in the options between these 2, the price difference and build quality isn't that significant in my choosing and I'm reading:

Tokina is more flare prone
Tokina is better for low light (obviously)
Outdoors favour the Canon
Indoors, social gatherings, astrophotogrphy favour Tokina.

Obvious focal range differences, but I think I will use this mostly at the wide end. 1mm difference isn't that significant is it?

I'm a bit torn between the two, anything I missed?

You have pretty much summed up the choice so it really boils down to your preferences.

11mm vs 10mm will make a surprising difference though - on Canon crop that is equivalent to 18mm vs 16mm FF equivalent. Nikon sells separate prime lenses to cover both of these focal lengths because there is a significant difference in a single of view. Really you should ignore the focal length and examine the field of view.

At the other end don't under estimate the difference between 16mm and 22mm. Ending at 16mm makes the lens a very dedicated UWA, that will constantly be swapped over to other wide-to-normal lenses. 22mm end up at 35mm FF equivalent which is a great focal length to end at (hence it is a popular prime lens on FF cameras).
 
The only real advantage of the Tokina is the f/2.8 aperture. Frankly I don't think that really gives you much as camera movement/shake is almost a non-issue at these kind of focal lengths. The Canon is only 0.5-1.5 stops slower and I've handheld mine at very low shutter speeds without any problems.
 
Thought about the Sigma 10-20?

I'll second that.
Had one about 12 months and got no real complaints. Slightly prone to a bit of lens flare on occasion but nothing you couldn't work round.
Otherwise, sharp image, quick and quiet focus etc.
 
You have pretty much summed up the choice so it really boils down to your preferences.

11mm vs 10mm will make a surprising difference though - on Canon crop that is equivalent to 18mm vs 16mm FF equivalent. Nikon sells separate prime lenses to cover both of these focal lengths because there is a significant difference in a single of view. Really you should ignore the focal length and examine the field of view.

At the other end don't under estimate the difference between 16mm and 22mm. Ending at 16mm makes the lens a very dedicated UWA, that will constantly be swapped over to other wide-to-normal lenses. 22mm end up at 35mm FF equivalent which is a great focal length to end at (hence it is a popular prime lens on FF cameras).


Thanks very much DP. Good point on the 1mm, didn't consider the crop factor. I think I'm feeling more inclined towards the Canon as it will probably end up being a more useful lens, especially considering I don't and probably never will own a library of glass :)
 
The only real advantage of the Tokina is the f/2.8 aperture. Frankly I don't think that really gives you much as camera movement/shake is almost a non-issue at these kind of focal lengths. The Canon is only 0.5-1.5 stops slower and I've handheld mine at very low shutter speeds without any problems.

Thanks Vertigo. I think the Tokina is feeling a bit more of a specialised lens with the Canon feeling more like an all rounder.
 
Back
Top Bottom