Canon crew: Canon 10-22mm f./3.5-4.5 OR Tokina 11-16mm f./2.8 v.UWA

lpphreakx06 · 01-09-2009, 11:16 PM

Planning on getting an UWA for more versatility. I'm shooting with a canon xti and 50mm 1.4. This lens is perfect but I'm pretty limited because of the fixed zoom.

Would the 2.8 f stop on the tokina be more beneficial then the extra mm I get with the canon?
Can I get some opinions?

UdubBadger · 01-09-2009, 11:52 PM

I have a 10-18mm tokina and I think its the shit.

I'd take a faster lens over a few mm any day of the week. Do you have the 18-55mm canon kit lens? If so that covers your higher end wide angle and you can use the tokina for REALLY wide fisheye looking shots.

TWiTCHY · 01-09-2009, 11:52 PM

Aha, as a wide-angle user I can tell you that you will always be using the lens at below 15mm. Any higher pretty much gets rid of the wide-angle distortion.

Ken Rockwell, mainly a Nikon guy, loves the lens.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

lpphreakx06 · 01-10-2009, 12:24 AM

I see... Its cheaper and seems like the build quality is better on the tokina. After this wide angle I think I will go for the 17-40mm L lens or the 18-55mm IS version. I ditched the kit lens a long time ago lol.

UdubBadger · 01-10-2009, 12:47 AM

sounds like a plan

LOLrance · 01-10-2009, 01:05 AM

Here is my review on the 11-16.
http://e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176012

After having used it for a while now, i have noticed that the Tokina is no where near as sharp as the canon 10-22. Maybe i just got a bad copy or something, but at 100 crop, its noticeably less sharp then the 10-22. I still think the lens is great "bang for buck" and having a faster lens is truly helpful when shooting at night. But if i had to pick one or the other, im not so confident i'd pick the 11-16 again.

vachss · 01-10-2009, 01:49 AM

All the ultrawides vary some from copy to copy. The 10-22 and 11-16 both have reputations as being the sharpest of the bunch. Even so the edges are never going to be spectacular. I only have direct experience with the 10-22, but found two copies to give pretty identical results - at 10mm very good in the center, but only OK at the edges even stopped down to f/11. Somewhat better and more uniform sharpness out beyond 12 or 13mm.

Don't get me wrong. I've had the 10-22 for 4 years now and use it lots. It's a fine landscape lens on 1.6x Canon bodies, but it's not a 21mm Distagon or a Nikon 14-24. Don't get your expectations too ridiculously high and you'll be happy with the 10-22 (or, from what I've heard, the 11-16).

Teshi · 01-10-2009, 08:15 AM

Why not also consider the Sigma 10-20? It gives the Canon a real hot run for its moneys.

sailorboy · 01-10-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teshi

Why not also consider the Sigma 10-20? It gives the Canon a real hot run for its moneys.

Yea, the Sigma is an excellent value for money lens....

01-09-2009, 11:16 PM	#1
lpphreakx06 Professional Moose Racer 322 Rep 7,509 Posts Drives: SG 335i E92 RIP + 2015 SS M3 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Bellevue, Wa iTrader: (25)	Canon crew: Canon 10-22mm f./3.5-4.5 OR Tokina 11-16mm f./2.8 v.UWA Planning on getting an UWA for more versatility. I'm shooting with a canon xti and 50mm 1.4. This lens is perfect but I'm pretty limited because of the fixed zoom. Would the 2.8 f stop on the tokina be more beneficial then the extra mm I get with the canon? Can I get some opinions? __________________ Visit my blog anytime: http://www.sfpayments.com BMW Dream Team PNW Chapter, member #1 \|HP Autowerks \| AR DESIGN \| BMW PERFORMANCE \| STOP TECH \| Volk Racing\| AMS \| ARKYM
	Appreciate 0 Tweet Quote

01-09-2009, 11:52 PM	#2
UdubBadger Banned 648 Rep 24,685 Posts Drives: '04 330i ZHP Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Chicago Burbs iTrader: (22) Garage List 2004 BMW 330i ZHP [9.50] 2011 135i [7.46] 2008 328xi [8.76]	I have a 10-18mm tokina and I think its the shit. I'd take a faster lens over a few mm any day of the week. Do you have the 18-55mm canon kit lens? If so that covers your higher end wide angle and you can use the tokina for REALLY wide fisheye looking shots.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-09-2009, 11:52 PM	#3
TWiTCHY Colonel 389 Rep 2,526 Posts Drives: '13 AW E92 M3 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: WA iTrader: (6)	Aha, as a wide-angle user I can tell you that you will always be using the lens at below 15mm. Any higher pretty much gets rid of the wide-angle distortion. Ken Rockwell, mainly a Nikon guy, loves the lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-10-2009, 12:24 AM	#4
lpphreakx06 Professional Moose Racer 322 Rep 7,509 Posts Drives: SG 335i E92 RIP + 2015 SS M3 Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Bellevue, Wa iTrader: (25)	I see... Its cheaper and seems like the build quality is better on the tokina. After this wide angle I think I will go for the 17-40mm L lens or the 18-55mm IS version. I ditched the kit lens a long time ago lol. __________________ Visit my blog anytime: http://www.sfpayments.com BMW Dream Team PNW Chapter, member #1 \|HP Autowerks \| AR DESIGN \| BMW PERFORMANCE \| STOP TECH \| Volk Racing\| AMS \| ARKYM
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-10-2009, 12:47 AM	#5
UdubBadger Banned 648 Rep 24,685 Posts Drives: '04 330i ZHP Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Chicago Burbs iTrader: (22) Garage List 2004 BMW 330i ZHP [9.50] 2011 135i [7.46] 2008 328xi [8.76]	sounds like a plan
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-10-2009, 01:05 AM	#6
LOLrance The Law. 307 Rep 14,282 Posts Drives: BMW Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: SF / OC iTrader: (17)	Here is my review on the 11-16. http://e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176012 After having used it for a while now, i have noticed that the Tokina is no where near as sharp as the canon 10-22. Maybe i just got a bad copy or something, but at 100 crop, its noticeably less sharp then the 10-22. I still think the lens is great "bang for buck" and having a faster lens is truly helpful when shooting at night. But if i had to pick one or the other, im not so confident i'd pick the 11-16 again. __________________
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-10-2009, 01:49 AM	#7
vachss Captain 56 Rep 815 Posts Drives: Z4 Coupe Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ventura County, CA iTrader: (1)	All the ultrawides vary some from copy to copy. The 10-22 and 11-16 both have reputations as being the sharpest of the bunch. Even so the edges are never going to be spectacular. I only have direct experience with the 10-22, but found two copies to give pretty identical results - at 10mm very good in the center, but only OK at the edges even stopped down to f/11. Somewhat better and more uniform sharpness out beyond 12 or 13mm. Don't get me wrong. I've had the 10-22 for 4 years now and use it lots. It's a fine landscape lens on 1.6x Canon bodies, but it's not a 21mm Distagon or a Nikon 14-24. Don't get your expectations too ridiculously high and you'll be happy with the 10-22 (or, from what I've heard, the 11-16).
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-10-2009, 08:15 AM	#8
Teshi First Lieutenant 155 Rep 346 Posts Drives: Blue/Usually full of camera ge Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Harrow - London iTrader: (0)	Why not also consider the Sigma 10-20? It gives the Canon a real hot run for its moneys.
	Appreciate 0 Quote