Need advice for wide-angle lens

[moneypenny02]

Hi all,
I am currently shooting with the canon XTi, and I was trying to get a wide-angle lens, especially for an upcoming trip to Italy where I will be shooting a lot of indoors shots.

I had done some work for a friend who was going to pay me in Amazon gift certificates, so I was hoping to get the Canon 10-22 (which i covet!!), but the amount of the gift cert was a LOT less than I had hoped, so I am trying to see if there is another good option.

Right now the cheapest 10-22 on amazon is about $750, and that is too rich for my student blood right now. I was looking at the Sigma 15-30 f/3.5 and would love to know what people's response to this lens is. Its about $400 less than the Canon--is it worth it?

With the 1.6x crop, I was trying to get as wide as possible, but how much do you think I will miss the 5 mm diff? Will the slightly faster 3.5 actually translate to a significant difference in low-light situations? I do a lot of indoor, or low-light and I try to avoid using my flash as much as possible, so I will most likely be using it opened all the way up (or close to it) no matter which lens I get.

Any suggestions would be very appreciated.

Thanks!

[michaelb]

Indoors you may have an issue with anything slower than f/2.8 and any f/2.8 wide angle isn't going to be cheap. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is the probably the least expensive and even that is around $600 new.

For the money I don't think you can beat the Tokina 12-24 f/4, but remember f/4 indoors without a tripod might be a problem. I often see them used on FM and POTN for $350-400. That's what I would go with; makes more sense than the Siggy 15-30 to me - if your OK with 15mm then you might as well get something like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and get an f/2.8 lens.

By the way, is your 18-55 the IS version?; for static subjects IS is really nice.

By the way, the difference between 12 and 15mm is quite alot.

[D Thompson]

With the 1.6x crop, I was trying to get as wide as possible, but how much do you think I will miss the 5 mm diff?
I don't know how much you will miss, just know that I would. In a landscape situation you can back up a few steps and recoup most of the difference. Your situation indoors may not have that capability.

Will the slightly faster 3.5 actually translate to a significant difference in low-light situations?
The Canon is f3.5 at the wide end and f4.5 at 22mm. The shift is somewhere toward the middle. Not a significant difference IMO. I would rather have the extra 5mm. Save up and get the Canon.

[Gintaras]

i would say either Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 10-20 but Sigma is slower apperture. i would go for Tokina 2.8 wide angle.

[adam75south]

i think the f/2.8 of the tokina would put it over the top for me.

[moneypenny02]

Thanks for the suggestions! Sorry for the delayed reply, but my internet has been down at home.

Before reading these I was able to go by a camera store to check out some of the lenses, and compared the Tokina 11-16 /2.8 and the Tamron 10-24 /3.5-4.5. I really loved the brightness of the Tokina, and I knew that it would be helpful given that I don't really like to use the flash. However, I agreed with other comments saying that it is basically like a prime & when I was trying it out, I did feel a bit constrained by the focal width. I liked the length of the Tamron, and I felt that there was a real difference between the different angles that it allows, but I did notice that it was darker. However, I think that if I can master using my external flash, I will perhaps be less hesitant about using the flash & the 3.5 v. 2.8 won't matter as much--at least that is what I am hoping. The fact that the Tamron is also less definitely helps, and I was thinking that I will be happy with that lens.

Now that I have had the chance to check the responses, I am wishing that I knew to check it against the Tokina 12-24 /4. It cuts down the range a little bit, and it would be even darker (at least on the wide end), but I am wondering if the constant f/4 would be better. Its also even a bit less than the Tamron, so that definitely makes it worth considering.

Any thoughts, or practical comparisons between the two?

[moneypenny02]

Ok, so I had the chance to try out the Tokina 12-24 today, and to be honest, I thought that the 2mm diff was quite noticeable. I didn't think that it would be, but it was.

Right now I am leaning towards the Tamron 10-24 (the guy at the camera shop also had that lens, and he spoke quite highly of it), but since the Tokina is over $100 less, and has stellar reviews, I would love to hear people's thoughts about choosing a wide angle between these two options.

[TheWengler]

I would go for one of the Tokina UWA options.

[moneypenny02]

Still interested in comparisons/ opinions between the Tamron 10-24 and Tokina 12-24.......but I am looking on amazon, and I can't tell the difference between these lenses (all listed as Tokina 12-24 f/4)--and if I get the Tokina I want to make sure that I get the right one. It might be that it is the same lens just titled differently, but they do vary in the info presented (like shipping weight), so they might be different. Can anyone advise:

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-AF-12-24mm-Canon-Digital/dp/B000EXP7Q0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1246690645&sr=1-1

Tokina AT-XAF124DXC 12-24mm Wide-Angle Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-AT-XAF124DXC-12-24mm-Wide-Angle-Canon/dp/B00099XTKA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1246690645&sr=1-2

[TheWengler]

I'm not sure if there's a difference between those two. There was recently an update to that lens that goes from $100 more.