Wide Angle Lens

[N Parker]

Have the Canon Rebel XS with 18-55IS kit and 55-250 lenses. Looking for wide angle now to shoot storm structure, lightning, and a side "hobby" of weddings. Really like the reviews on the Canon 10-22, but have found the Tamron 10-24 and the Sigma 10-20 alot cheaper. Im not a professional by any means, but I like to have sharp pictures. Im also about to pick up a Speedlite 270ex II and some other accesories, so I really dont wanna lay down 840 bucks when 450 will do what I need.

What are ya'll thoughts/suggestions on the wide lenses?
Thanks in advance!!
Nick

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Never tried the Tamron lens. Almost went that route. I went with the 10-22. Things like vignetting, focus, and color aberrations get fairly critical with any multi field lens. Consistency from model to model from the mfr is important too. The Tamron, before reading many reviews before I made my choice for the Canon, seemed to be the choice between the Sigma and the Tamron. The downside to the Tamron, is the lack of weight/heft. It is lighter and feels cheaper. The Sigma, after many review read, seemed to be inconsistent. Some got a great copy; others complained of lack of sharpness.

Any lens can be calibrated, including the Canon. Factory custom service might be an issue; that might be the next step to research before the buck is spent - IMO. I've heard a few guys say that they really like their Tamron. Same for the Sigma. I like the Canon . . .

 

[Skip Talbot]

I picked up a refurbished EF-S 10-22 from Adorama. It saved me some money and the lens is checked by the manufacturer to make sure its up to specifications. This might be a good way to go if you're looking for a quality lens and want to save some money. They get batches of refurbished lenses in from time to time, so check their site for availability. I was sold on a wide angle zoom and specifically the 10-22 after seeing some of the exquisite shots Mike Hollingshead has gotten with the lens: http://extremeinstability.com/

 

[Mark Sefried]

Have heard really good things about the tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens. You may want to research it to see if it will fit your needs. Here is a review on the lens: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm . Since I am a Pentax dslr user I have not had the chance to actually use the lens because it is not made for a Pentax mount camera. It costs $659.00 and a lot of times is on backorder for canon cameras.

 

[Bill Doms]

I picked up a Tonika 11-16 f2.8 (Nikon mount) this year after reading a lot of reviews and spending a gazillion hours on PhotoSig looking at shots taken with it. The Sigma 10-20 IMO has always been too soft. Anyhow, something to consider which could save a few bucks plus the f2.8 on a zoom (I usually just leave mine at 11mm) is a huge plus for low light without have to compensate shutter speed or higher ISO.

 

[W. Grant Dade]

I picked up the Sigma 8 -16 mm UWA and I love it. No storm photos yet but I have shoot some real estate. I am waiting to get a good structure storm but will probably have to wait a few months where I live.

 

[Mark Blue]

I went through what you are going through just a few months ago. We have a Pentax Kx and I decided on the Sigma 10-20 mm F3.5 model at B&H found here Sigma. It isn't real obvious in the images and elsewhere on B&H, but the lens is an absolute beast as far as heft and size are concerned and feels like a Sherman tank the first time you pick it up. We are still getting used to the different scenarios in which to use each different lens we have and I have taken a few pictures with the UWA. So far I am happy with the purchase and the quality seems top notch to me, even though I am far from being an expert in this arena. I don't think you'd be disappointed if you went with the Sigma.

 

[Brandon Jenkins]

I love my Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 but like Bill said, it can be a tad on the soft side in the corners, but its hard to notice unless you are cropping with the intent of finding imperfections. I have had great results and the build quality is excellent for the cost. I entertained the idea of getting the Canon 10-22 but I am glad I saved the money at this point. The Tokina is another great option but it can be a little pricey as well. For the photographer on a budget the Sigma is the way to go IMO, if you have the money to spend, go Canon.

 

[N Parker]

Thanks for the info! Been reading until my eyes are bloodshot for the past two nights on all three of the lenses. Believe im just going to wait until I can pick up the 10-22. The mixed reviews scare me on the Sigma & Tamron. Very few folks all over the net dislike the Canon. Guess I'll stand by the ole motto, go big or go home! Also picked up Adobe Lr 3, and just wow. Amazing how I can "fix" bad shots and even make some of my old ones alot better & unique. Money well spent....now for the hardware

 

[Brett Nickeson]

It sounds like you've already made up your mind, but I'll throw in another vote for the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. Wide aperture, reasonable vignetting for an UWA, and built like a tank. I fell in love with it when I rented one last year and I bought a copy a few months later. It stays permanently fixed to one camera when I'm out chasing.

The Canon is a very good lens as well, but you will have more vignetting and distortion, and it is not built much better than the 18-55mm.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Can't say about the 18-55mm IS lens; maybe it is a nice lens. Never owned/used one. Like to try it for giggles. But the 18-55mm non-IS kit lens that came with the Rebels is pretty awful - IMO. Focus wasn't the problem as much as a nasty yellow hue/cast that permeated all the photos I took with it. Uggghhh . . .

The f/2.8 on the Tokina sounds to me that it could prove to be quite exceptional in low light conditions. Definitely an asset, since this is an essential tool in storm photography. Some have said that the focus is superior to the Canon, and some have said that the Tokina is nearly as sharp as a prime lens. Since this is true even wide open; this could be a real contender in the UWA lens competition.

I have and use a Canon 50mm f/1.4 for telephoto/low light conditions. That is a fantastic lens that can be used for just about everything else - too. But for near field work, the UWA's just cannot be beat. The sharpness in my 10-22mm is nearly as good as the 50mm. Maybe I am fortunate and just got a great copy. Purple fringing is the only complaint I have; but that is minimal and depends upon conditions.

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II would be the best; but at $1900 for a copy - that is definitely out of my range.
That Tokina is one lens I'd like to try myself; but we will see what happens . . .

 

[ScottKoenig]

I have the Tokina 11-16mm Canon mount, amazing lens the copy I have is very sharp the only thing I don't like about is how easy it flares (but most UWA lenses are this way).

Triple Stacked Supercell shot with Tokina 11-16mm


Time Lapse Video of the same storm

 

[N Parker]

Know this is a departure from the title. But im now trying to decide if I really want to fork over the coin for a strict wide angle, or go with a Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens or something like it for my indoor/low light type shots and pick up another one to retire my kit lens.

Reason being, I went back and looked at the focal length of all my pictures, and 90% of them are within the kit's range (average 20-35), with some being taken care of in the low range of the 55-250. I am very comfortable with that, especially if I can get a 50mm that has fast aperture. I also want a lens that has the focus actually identified on the body of the lens. I get so tired of trying to find a distant object to get "infinity" on my kit, taking lightning pics, then finding out that what I focused on didn't put the focus in the right spot. Lost alot of good shots that way, including a recent night of fireworks.

Again, sorry for the change in topic, any good recommendations for a replacement to my 18-55 IS ? Thanks for all the good discussion. Really helping out....

 

[Derek Weston]

Also own a tokina 11-16 and am very happy with it. Find the its f/2.8 capabilities very handy and use this quite often. Built well. What I really love about it is its color & contrast... Only complaint would be that it would be nice to be able to zoom in a bit more... but I leave it at 11mm most of the time anyway. Most wide angles turn into effective primes. The lens is well reviewed if you look around on the net.

Other lens I'm reading tons of great reviews on is the sigma 8-16. Apparently the sucker is really sharp at 8mm and not too distorted. Very good optics from what I read.

Of course the canon 10-22 is quite solid and has a bit more range. . .

If I had to pick it'd be between the sigma 8-16 and the tokina 11-16. If you want low light capabilities... go tokina. If you don't need big performance there... the sigma goes wider and has equally strong optics.

 

[W. Grant Dade]

This was taken with the sigma 8-16mm. f/2.8 would have brought the stars out a little more but all in all, I love the lens.