Super-Wide Lens Advice

[LiveStrong2009]

As Christmas approaches, I am considering a new lens for myself. For my uses, a super-wide angle lens would be incredibly handy. I am considering a couple options.

Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 HSM which is around 600 dollars

or

Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 for around 400 dollars

I have had no experience with any lenses aside from Canon, but for the price of these compared to the most similar Canon lens... I just cannot justify it.

I am also open to other brands, Tokina is another that I did see on adorama, which is still in the running. The two I posted are top on my list. I guess I like the pricepoint of the Tamron, but the same max aperture of the Sigma.

Any thoughts? Reviews? Suggestions on which one you might pick and why...

Thanks!

 

[Chamelion 6]

No experience with the Tamron, but I have the Sigma. I use it probably 70 to 80% of the time. I think, personally, the constant apeture of the Sigma makes it worth the extra cost, especially if you plan to use it much. It's easily my favorite lens.

 

[LiveStrong2009]

I am going to take a guess and say that I will be using this lens about the same percentage that you do. Followed by my 50mm and then the zooms.

Landscapes are my most common photos, followed by interior architectural shots. Well, my hobby of urban exploration is dependent upon the photography. Without photographing these awesome places, the appeal of entering some of them just is not as great.

Thanks for the advice, that lens is surely the one I would prefer. Really I guess price vs quality is really what I need to narrow down.

 

[Geaux]

Tokina 11-16 2.8 is in the same price range as the 10-20 3.5, but it doesn't have an internal focus motor. It's pretty much THE wide angle lense to get, unless you're going name brand (nikon, canon, etc)

My Christmas lense is going to be the 10-20, but not the 3.5 .. going to stick with the $479 4.5 version.

 

[Chamelion 6]

If you're doing landscapes the fact that Sigma will accept a Polarizer is another benefit. As I recall the Tamron also will, but I don't think the Tokina 11-16 does. I don't do a lot of landscapes, per se, but I do a lot of urban stuff and I like the added drama the ultra wide angle provides. I use it with a polarizer much of the time...

I agonized between the 3.5 and the 4.5, mostly over cost. Given how much I use the lens I'm glad I spent the extra cash. For me, it's paid off.

 

[Blake.Oney]

You could always go with the Sigma 15mm fisheye f2.8 for $609

 

[timethief]

I have the Sigma 3.5 and although i got a bad copy at first, i managed to get it replaced.
The new one works pretty good and i am quite satisfied with the results.
There is a good read on the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 on Thom Hogans site. you might want to read it.

 

[table1349]

Tokina 11-16 2.8 is in the same price range as the 10-20 3.5, but it doesn't have an internal focus motor. It's pretty much THE wide angle lense to get, unless you're going name brand (nikon, canon, etc)

My Christmas lense is going to be the 10-20, but not the 3.5 .. going to stick with the $479 4.5 version.

WOW. I must have a really rare Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for my Canon then because mine has a focus motor built into it. :mrgreen:

Livestrong, if you are in the market for a crop sensor ultra wide the Tokina is every bit as sharp as the 10-22 from Canon. I used to own the 10-22, since sold for the 11-16. It does have an internal focus motor and internal focusing. It would be a very versatile lens in many situations due to being an f2.8. What it doesn't have is an AF switch like Canon lenses. To switch from AF to manual focus or back to AF you snap the focus ring forward and back. You can't go wrong with either the Tokina or Canon, but for my money I would choose the Tokina. OH Wait, I DID!:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

 

[Dao]

Take a look at this comparison. It covers most of the common ultra wide zoom lens for Canon.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I agree either the Canon or the Tokina would be your best buys. If you will use this lens more than the others, shouldn't your best investment be on this lens? The Canons you can find used on craigslist commonly for around $500-$600. The Tokina is faster by 1 stop but constant as well. It however has a much tighter/shorter zoom range than the canon. The canon also has a closer minimum focus distance, better coatings on the optics, ring-type USM, goes wider and longer and is much lighter than the Tokina I would bet ( although that may make the Tokina more durable ).

 

[Chamelion 6]

Take a look at this comparison. It covers most of the common ultra wide zoom lens for Canon.

I did quite a bit of research before I bought my lens, but this one article brings all of it together in one place.

Of the lenses offered I still feel I made the best choice.

 

[Dao]

Take a look at this comparison. It covers most of the common ultra wide zoom lens for Canon.

I did quite a bit of research before I bought my lens, but this one article brings all of it together in one place.

Of the lenses offered I still feel I made the best choice.

And the Sigma you picked seems to be best among the group in terms of price per performance.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Yes, the Sigma gets rave reviews, aside from the fact that there have been a lot of duds put out by Sigmas lax quality control. I think thats what steers people away from it quite often. Also, the Sigma doesn't do as well with flare ( which to me is the biggest achilles heel of SuperWide lenses ).

 

[Chamelion 6]

I have the 3.5 HSN. I can say that as far as flair and contrast shooting towards the sun my experience pretty much reflects the comparison here. This lens is at least as good as most of my old FD lenses I used on my old F-1. I simply have not really had any problems with it. As for the duds, most of those I've known or read about were with the older 10-22, not the 3.5.

If there is an issue that I have it's that on the T1i the lens is massive and front heavy. That makes for some tired arms when you shoot with it all day. I tend to wrap the strap around my wrist and carry the camera by the grip, ready to shoot... It would be happier on a heaver camera.

 

[pbelarge]

I know you mention the Canon is pricey, but it is not just the sharpness or least amount of distortion.
The color rendition and consistancy of this lens is fabulous.