UWA Lens!!

[faisal]

I just came back from a trip to India where I felt 18mm wasn't enough on quite a few situations....I'm mostly off to London in mid March where I think a UWA lens would be great for some architectural shots....

I've been wanting a UWA for ages but now I've got the finances in hand...I've always eyed the Sigma 10-20 as it's been the only one I can afford as the Canon is just out of my range ($900). I can get it for $490 with a one year warranty....

Then I find a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 being sold second hand $570 in mint condition (according to the seller) but with no warranty...

I know the general advantages and disadvantages of both these lens....
What I want to know is personal experience and recommendation from who ever has handled one or both of these lens...

Also any other UWA lens I should consider...apart from the Sigma 12-24 ($700).

Thanks in advance!!! :)

[cdifoto]

Check out www.photozone.de.

[faisal]

Check out www.photozone.de.

I didn't know a review was up on photozone...thanks!!!

[Rooz]

the sigma 12-24 isnt very good, the only benefit of it is that its a full frame lens which isnt very relevant to you having a rebel camera, (unless you're thinking of going full frame soon).

of the others the tokina is the best one followed by the canon and then the siggie 10-20.

[faisal]

the sigma 12-24 isnt very good, the only benefit of it is that its a full frame lens which isnt very relevant to you having a rebel camera, (unless you're thinking of going full frame soon).

of the others the tokina is the best one followed by the canon and then the siggie 10-20.

I'm not considering the Sigma 12-24 at all cause if I wanted wide on a full frame, I'd prefer a Canon 17-40...and anyway I'm not going full frame anytime soon unless I find a great deal on a second hand 5d whenever I upgrade to a 40D/50D....

[cdifoto]

If it was my decision to make, I'd be getting one of the Tokinas. I had the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and loved it. I have the Sigma 12-24 now but only because the Tokina is moot on 1.3x.

[faisal]

If it was my decision to make, I'd be getting one of the Tokinas. I had the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and loved it. I have the Sigma 12-24 now but only because the Tokina is moot on 1.3x.

The thing is there does not seem to be a single seller that I can or anybody else on a local forum can find that sells brand new Tokina glass....so I have no other source to compare the lens with like I did with my Sigma 50mm macro where I visited a shop, tried out a new lens and then met the seller and compared the results...so I'm a little hesitant...

Plus to think of it now...I won't be able to get the lens fixed if there is a problem with the lens later on...damn!!! didn't think of that before...will need to look into it now...

[cdifoto]

I live in the USA: Land of Consumerism & home of more products than anyone should ever have access to, let alone accumulate.

Neener neener neener!

:p

[faisal]

I live in the USA: Land of Consumerism & home of more products than anyone should ever have access to, let alone accumulate.

Neener neener neener!

:p

show off!!!! :mad: :p

The closest dealer according to the website is
Kenko Co.,Ltd. India Office
Mumbai Office: 1st floor, 189-191, Dr.D.N.Road, Next to Central Camera Bldg.,
Mumbai 400 001 India..... :eek:

So if I want the lens fixed, I need to find a relative or friend who's flying to India to get it fixed for me.. :(

[cdifoto]

LOL. Not showing off. It's actually rather repulsive. :eek:

[faisal]

LOL. Not showing off. It's actually rather repulsive. :eek:

hahaha...true....

But it's just plain frustrating sometimes over here when I can't find camera accessories...and if I find them, I'll be required to pay a premium of 20-30% over the prices you get over there....so sometimes I wish I could just catch a plane to the US to do my shopping but then the cost of a ticket costs a bomb...plus the whole applying for a visa and getting my fingers, eyes and god knows what scanned.... :rolleyes:

Life's so unfair!!!!

[cdifoto]

hahaha...true....

But it's just plain frustrating sometimes over here when I can't find camera accessories...and if I find them, I'll be required to pay a premium of 20-30% over the prices you get over there....so sometimes I wish I could just catch a plane to the US to do my shopping but then the cost of a ticket costs a bomb...plus the whole applying for a visa and getting my fingers, eyes and god knows what scanned.... :rolleyes:

Life's so unfair!!!!
I hear you on that.

[TeddTucker]

Tamron has a UWA coming out http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1024_diII.asp

[D Thompson]

....so sometimes I wish I could just catch a plane to the US to do my shopping but then the cost of a ticket costs a bomb...

Probably a bad analogy ;)

Also, a plug for the Canon 10-22.

[GoneTomorrow]

Faisal, I'm also in the market for a wide-angle zoom for my 40D. I'm having trouble deciding between the Tokina 12-24mm and the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. Any opinions from anyone about which of two would be better overall? Is the Canon worth the approximate $100 or so more in price? I've read reviews for both and looked at the MTF charts and other widgets which graph sharpness, and it looks like the Tokina is better in terms of corner-to-corner sharpness. But the Canon is a tad wider angle and I read nothing but rave reviews for it. I'd just assume get the Tokina unless there is something compelling about the Canon to consider (I can afford either).

[faisal]

Tamron has a UWA coming out http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/1024_diII.asp

Thanks for the link...when is it getting launched???


Probably a bad analogy ;)

Also, a plug for the Canon 10-22.

Opps...my bad!!! :o

The Canon costs a whopping $900 here...that's the problem holding me back from considering it...


Faisal, I'm also in the market for a wide-angle zoom for my 40D. I'm having trouble deciding between the Tokina 12-24mm and the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. Any opinions from anyone about which of two would be better overall? Is the Canon worth the approximate $100 or so more in price? I've read reviews for both and looked at the MTF charts and other widgets which graph sharpness, and it looks like the Tokina is better in terms of corner-to-corner sharpness. But the Canon is a tad wider angle and I read nothing but rave reviews for it. I'd just assume get the Tokina unless there is something compelling about the Canon to consider (I can afford either).

Check the link TeddTucker gave....10-24 is like a combination of both the lens you're considering focal length wise... :)

[Rhys]

I was idly looking at fisheyes. The best I can see so far is a Pentax pancake fisheye in M42 mount. That would mount on any EOS with the EOS-M42 adaptor. And it's focus free!

Just a thought but you could look into ultrawide screw mount lenses and use a screw-mount adaptor.

Personally, I would not buy any lens if it doesn't say Canon on it because my experience both with Nikon in the past and Canon now is that independent lenses just do not perform as well as manufacturer's brand lenses.

[D Thompson]

Is the Canon worth the approximate $100 or so more in price? But the Canon is a tad wider angle and I read nothing but rave reviews for it.
For me it was, but then I don't consider 3rd party lenses when I'm shopping. I got the ef-s 10-22 right after it came out and absolutely love it. I highly recommend it.


Opps...my bad!!! :o

The Canon costs a whopping $900 here...that's the problem holding me back from considering it...
No problem, I just wouldn't use that phrase in an airport! :eek:

I know others like the Tokina and I've never used it so I can't comment on it. The Canon 10-22 is a great lens. Most people say it would have the "L" description if it wasn't made for a crop sensor. Like I said, I don't consider 3rd party lenses in the hunt. As in everything, it comes down to what is affordable and a person is willing to spend. Good luck in whichever lens you decide upon.

[cdifoto]

I was idly looking at fisheyes. The best I can see so far is a Pentax pancake fisheye in M42 mount. That would mount on any EOS with the EOS-M42 adaptor. And it's focus free!

Just a thought but you could look into ultrawide screw mount lenses and use a screw-mount adaptor.

Personally, I would not buy any lens if it doesn't say Canon on it because my experience both with Nikon in the past and Canon now is that independent lenses just do not perform as well as manufacturer's brand lenses.
Name one M42 mount 10mm or 12mm lens that isn't a fisheye. This thread is about ultra-wides, not fisheyes.

[Mark_48]

I've got a Sigma 10-20 that I've been happy with for the times I've used it. Sharp, fast focusing, and good color.

Good sampling of images at http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/10-20_4-56_ex_dc_hsm

........and you'll want to get a thin CPL for it. A standard will cause some dark edges.

[GoneTomorrow]

Check the link TeddTucker gave....10-24 is like a combination of both the lens you're considering focal length wise... :)

Well, if the tests on DP Review's review for that lens are any indicator, the Tamron doesn't stack up to the Tokina or Canon. It's hard to get all desired features in one lens it seems.

[GoneTomorrow]

Personally, I would not buy any lens if it doesn't say Canon on it because my experience both with Nikon in the past and Canon now is that independent lenses just do not perform as well as manufacturer's brand lenses.

This is how I've tended to feel; I've been hesitant to try third-party lenses. However the Tokina 12-24mm is the first one to make me think twice. How do you feel about it next the Canon 10-22mm Rhys?

[faisal]

I was idly looking at fisheyes. The best I can see so far is a Pentax pancake fisheye in M42 mount. That would mount on any EOS with the EOS-M42 adaptor. And it's focus free!

Just a thought but you could look into ultrawide screw mount lenses and use a screw-mount adaptor.

Personally, I would not buy any lens if it doesn't say Canon on it because my experience both with Nikon in the past and Canon now is that independent lenses just do not perform as well as manufacturer's brand lenses.

How much ever it might be cool to own a fisheye, it's not on my wish list yet....I've got other lens on my list....

I have no issues with investing in third party equipment cause it meets my not so high standard. For example...I'm happy with the slow focus speeds of my lens cause I don't shoot a lot of fast action, but then again that might change if I use a lens with USM but for now I can't afford one. So I need to make do with what I can afford, and by the good response I get from people on this forum regarding my progress as a photographer, I think my third party lens have served me well so my faith in them in strong.



No problem, I just wouldn't use that phrase in an airport! :eek:

I know others like the Tokina and I've never used it so I can't comment on it. The Canon 10-22 is a great lens. Most people say it would have the "L" description if it wasn't made for a crop sensor. Like I said, I don't consider 3rd party lenses in the hunt. As in everything, it comes down to what is affordable and a person is willing to spend. Good luck in whichever lens you decide upon.

The canon 10-22 was totally on my wish list, but then the Tokina 11-16 was launched and the constant f2.8 is quite tempting plus the steep price tag of the canon does not justify me to buy it. Only if the lens was at the Us prices than I'd totally jump on it without a second thought.


Well, if the tests on DP Review's review for that lens are any indicator, the Tamron doesn't stack up to the Tokina or Canon. It's hard to get all desired features in one lens it seems.

Hmm....I haven't checked out the review yet, will look at it...


I've got a Sigma 10-20 that I've been happy with for the times I've used it. Sharp, fast focusing, and good color.

Good sampling of images at http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/10-20_4-56_ex_dc_hsm

........and you'll want to get a thin CPL for it. A standard will cause some dark edges.

I would have bought the sigma as I didn't have any other option as the Tokina is not sold here but with this second hand Tokina option available, the sigma just became a second option for me. But thanks for the link, will look them up.

I read somewhere about the thin CPL...will need to order that online as getting anything but the standard CPL is close to impossible... :rolleyes:

Anyway in the end....Is the Tokina worth buying for $543 in mint condition (will check on that tomorrow) with a Malaysia warranty but with no local warranty nor any existing service centre to get it fixed.

[Rhys]

This is how I've tended to feel; I've been hesitant to try third-party lenses. However the Tokina 12-24mm is the first one to make me think twice. How do you feel about it next the Canon 10-22mm Rhys?

I would love to have a lens wider than 17mm but I am not prepared to fork out for a lens that just wouldn't get much use. The problem beyond 17mm is distortion. They're great for landscapes but not so good indoors at wedding parties because of the distortion issue. Sure - it can be corrected in photoshop but then most anything can be with the real downer being the time taken to do so.

If I were to buy a wide lens then I most definitely would have difficulty initially in justifying the price of the Canon. Based on prior experience of off-brand goods, I would go the extra mile and get the Canon.

[Rooz]

I would love to have a lens wider than 17mm but I am not prepared to fork out for a lens that just wouldn't get much use. The problem beyond 17mm is distortion. They're great for landscapes but not so good indoors at wedding parties because of the distortion issue. Sure - it can be corrected in photoshop but then most anything can be with the real downer being the time taken to do so.

it has nothing to do with the focal length and everythign to do with the design and quality of the lens. both the canon and the tokina UWA lens' have siginficantly less barrel distortion at much wider focal lengths than the 17-85. even at their extremes of 12mm and 11mm respectively, they have less distortion, (and significantly so), than your 17-85 at 17mm.

its not unusual for a walkaround zoom to have distortion at the wide end, thats the price you pay for the flexibility, its just that the 17-85 takes it to new levels of crapness.

[raven15]

I'm pretty sure the distortion Rhys was referring too is perspective distortion, which is unavoidable regardless of quality and makes people's faces in the corners of UWA shots look very strange. Hard to say where this begins and like everything it depends on the person. Some people say anything past 35mm, some say 28mm, 24mm, 22mm. I don't frequently do people, so I'll arbitrarily say perspective distortion is bad past a 90 degree diagonal.

[TheWengler]

Well I don't have any experience with UWA lenses, but if I were to get one it'd be the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

[faisal]

I tried three UWA lens...the canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16...to be honest I'm disappointed...I was expecting more wideness...plus did not like the perspective distortion....urgh!!! Will look into the images now that I took....lets see if I like the shots!!!

[Rhys]

I'm pretty sure the distortion Rhys was referring too is perspective distortion, which is unavoidable regardless of quality and makes people's faces in the corners of UWA shots look very strange. Hard to say where this begins and like everything it depends on the person. Some people say anything past 35mm, some say 28mm, 24mm, 22mm. I don't frequently do people, so I'll arbitrarily say perspective distortion is bad past a 90 degree diagonal.

Yup. Absolutely correct. I did mean perspective distortion but Rooz took it on himself to get the boot in about a lens that for some strange reason he has something against.

Anything much wider than 17mm (28mm in 35mm terms) is going to look very strange and unnatural. I had a 24mm prime lens in my 35mm days and hated the weird perspective it gave. Back then, having used a wide variety of focal lengths, I came to the conclusion that 28 was the widest that was practical without weird effects and that 200 was about the longest that was reasonably practical. Beyond that lenses became very heavy, unwieldy and of dubious value due to the relatively few times they'd be used.

[D Thompson]

I tried three UWA lens...the canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16...to be honest I'm disappointed...I was expecting more wideness...plus did not like the perspective distortion....urgh!!! Will look into the images now that I took....lets see if I like the shots!!!
I'm surprised you're disappointed in the wideness of 10mm (16 equiv). I don't recall ever wishing for wider and I shoot a lot of landscape. In fact, I have trouble framing some shots trying to get the tripod legs out of the image. As far as the perspective distortion - it's gonna show on buildings at 10mm. You're approaching fish-eye range. Back in the film days 24-28mm was considered wide angle and 20mm was ultra.

[faisal]

I'm surprised you're disappointed in the wideness of 10mm (16 equiv). I don't recall ever wishing for wider and I shoot a lot of landscape. In fact, I have trouble framing some shots trying to get the tripod legs out of the image. As far as the perspective distortion - it's gonna show on buildings at 10mm. You're approaching fish-eye range. Back in the film days 24-28mm was considered wide angle and 20mm was ultra.

I'm a Panorama guy...so whatever images the lens is able to take, I can with a two shot panorama with my current lens...so to me spending that much money on something I can already do with my current set up doesn't make sense....but still I'll have a look at the pictures just to make a decision...

Buying a UWA for me is mainly for architecture....so the distortion is painfully annoying...I'm going to see how hard/easy it is to fix it compared to a panorama...

[D Thompson]

I'm a Panorama guy...so whatever images the lens is able to take, I can with a two shot panorama with my current lens...so to me spending that much money on something I can already do with my current set up doesn't make sense....but still I'll have a look at the pictures just to make a decision...

Buying a UWA for me is mainly for architecture....so the distortion is painfully annoying...I'm going to see how hard/easy it is to fix it compared to a panorama...

Yeah, you may be better off with your current workflow. I've got a few shots @ 10mm with structures and while I can make them a little better, there is still quite a bit of perspective distortion. When there is nothing but landscape it's a fantastic length tho!

[faisal]

Here are some 100% crops from the Tokina....I'm totally pixel peeping....I'm over the original disappointment and not so disappointed right now....

In the second comparison...I think the F10 shot is not sharp due to motion blur!!!

[faisal]

Yeah, you may be better off with your current workflow. I've got a few shots @ 10mm with structures and while I can make them a little better, there is still quite a bit of perspective distortion. When there is nothing but landscape it's a fantastic length tho!

I don't get much landscape here....i.e trees and lakes and stuff...it's all buildings...

I wish I could have tested the lens further indoors but didn't have a tripod and ISO 800 on my 400D isn't the best for testing a lens....

Sigma vs Canon at ISO 200

[faisal]

Here's an indoor shot from the Tokina at f2.8, ISO 200...
That looks pretty good to me....hmm....I can feel the 'winds of change'...

[Csae]

Shooting with UWA is pretty hard, you have to compose your images differently to keep them interesting.

The most useful part about UWA isn't necessarely landscapes but shooting indoors, when shooting landscapes i dont think i go lower then 20, i mostly land around 35.

I always found macro lenses to be funner then UWA because its easier to get interesting shots out of them. Maybe thats just me.

[cdifoto]

I'm a Panorama guy...so whatever images the lens is able to take, I can with a two shot panorama with my current lens...so to me spending that much money on something I can already do with my current set up doesn't make sense....but still I'll have a look at the pictures just to make a decision...

Buying a UWA for me is mainly for architecture....so the distortion is painfully annoying...I'm going to see how hard/easy it is to fix it compared to a panorama...
If you do panoramas, you wouldn't want an UWA, assuming you want to maintain incredible detail. An ultra-wide gives you the wider view by shrinking everything, not by extending the sides, top, and bottom. People think ultra-wides are really soft compared to standard lenses but the fact of the matter is they put more detail on each pixel, and the sensor cannot resolve it. Shoot something close up with an ultra-wide and it'll be sharp as nuggets.

[faisal]

Shooting with UWA is pretty hard, you have to compose your images differently to keep them interesting.

The most useful part about UWA isn't necessarely landscapes but shooting indoors, when shooting landscapes i dont think i go lower then 20, i mostly land around 35.

I always found macro lenses to be funner then UWA because its easier to get interesting shots out of them. Maybe thats just me.

I agree getting an interesting shot out of a macro is much easier....

For indoor stuff, the Tokina really seems like the answer out of all the UWAs....This single shot I took in a mall is really making me want to buy it...

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q121/faisal7/400D/IMG_2718.jpg
11mm, 1/30, f2.8, ISO 200

I just want some input on the crops I've posted...regarding the sharpness/IQ of the lens...is it any good???

[cdifoto]

Looks fine, fais.

[faisal]

If you do panoramas, you wouldn't want an UWA, assuming you want to maintain incredible detail. An ultra-wide gives you the wider view by shrinking everything, not by extending the sides, top, and bottom. People think ultra-wides are really soft compared to standard lenses but the fact of the matter is they put more detail on each pixel, and the sensor cannot resolve it. Shoot something close up with an ultra-wide and it'll be sharp as nuggets.

The leaf crops are from a close up shot of the pot plant about 2 feet away from me...and to my eyes...apart from f2.8, all the other crops seem very sharp.....

My need for a UWA is not to do those 2-3 shot panoramas...cause sometimes you just can't fix those lines when stitching images....
So the lens out performs the camera is what you're saying??

Btw regarding your old 12-24, was the lens hood crappy, i.e not built well, I could bend the one I saw with one hand....

[cdifoto]

I'm not saying the lens outresolves the sensor (I'm not knowledgable enough to make that strong of a statement), I'm just saying that some people expect sensors to resolve more detail than is possible.

I don't recall what the hood was like. I don't have a habit of flexing my hoods. I just mount 'em and shoot. :p

[faisal]

I'm not saying the lens outresolves the sensor (I'm not knowledgable enough to make that strong of a statement), I'm just saying that some people expect sensors to resolve more detail than is possible.

I don't recall what the hood was like. I don't have a habit of flexing my hoods. I just mount 'em and shoot. :p

aaahhh...okay...got it!!!

So the crops look fine....hmm...now I just need to make a decision and break the news to my parents.... ;)

The hood built was worse than the hoods I've gotten with my Sigma lens....which was very surprising cause the lens itself seemed to be built just like my macro lens which is built like a tank...very odd....
I generally reverse mount my hood on my 18-200 to take the general bumps that might come the lens way so might do some research into the tokina hood...

[GaryS]

Following cdi's thought, you also don't want to use an ultra-wide for panos because they have higher edge distortion, making it much more difficult to stitch the photos together.

[faisal]

Following cdi's thought, you also don't want to use an ultra-wide for panos because they have higher edge distortion, making it much more difficult to stitch the photos together.

Is the same higher edge distortion effect there at 16mm...cause I could (if I want) always use that for panoramas cause it's still wider than 18mm...

Got the price down to $490....totally time to break the news to my parents...I'm getting excited and nervous....

[GaryS]

Honestly, I don't know Faisal... That's just something that I've been warned about, and I've noticed that it's easier to stitch panos shot at 50mm than those at 18... I'm interested to know what your experiences are though!

[faisal]

Honestly, I don't know Faisal... That's just something that I've been warned about, and I've noticed that it's easier to stitch panos shot at 50mm than those at 18... I'm interested to know what your experiences are though!

Stitching panoramas at 50mm especially with the nifty fifty is waaaaay easier due to minimal or almost no distortion....but what a 12 shot panorama shows when taken with a 50mm...a 4 shot panorama taken with a 18mm can show...so in the end it all depends on a the scene, how well you frame it with whatever lens you've got and how far you would go to fix distortion....

The only reason I use more 18mm than 50mm is the ability to have that extra bit of sky/land/whatever that does not add any value to my shot but can be used when the need to fix distortion arises. To get that same extra, I might sometimes have some difficulty with a 50mm...

[Csae]

a 50mm 12 shot panorama will in fact give ALOT more detail then a 4 shot 18mm pano.

If you are only printing it at 4x6 or 8x12, then it probably wouldn't be noticeable. But larger prints will be alot clearer.

[faisal]

a 50mm 12 shot panorama will in fact give ALOT more detail then a 4 shot 18mm pano.

If you are only printing it at 4x6 or 8x12, then it probably wouldn't be noticeable. But larger prints will be alot clearer.

I was talking about field of view.....
but detail wise, the 50mm would surely outshine a 18mm shot...big time!!!

[faisal]

One issue...

He has a warranty card with the shop stamp on it but no invoice nor a date on the stamp....
I know warranty does not matter over here, but I could still get it send to India if I want it fixed...according to him he bought it last month...

What can or should I do!!!

[faisal]

Just got out bid by some big shot news paper photographer who paid $600 for the lens.... :mad: :(