Wide for an APS-C body.

[camerasnoop]

Okay, one of my mates' sons has asked me about a good wide angle for his just bought 7D. He's gone out and bought the camera and a Sigma 24-70 F2.8, but wants a wide to go with it, initially for travel. I've suggested three lenses for him as he wants to turn this into a serious hobby and the little bugger has more funds than I do.

My suggestions were:

Tokina 11-16
Sigma 8-16
Canon 8-15 F4L

I've seen plenty of reviews on these, but does anyone have any real world experience with the last two?

Cheers,

[lincoln]

Hi Snoopy
I like your work.
Not answering your question at all, but would suggest adding the EF-S 10-22mm to your list.

[KeeFy]

Tokina 11-16 and Canon 10-22 will be on the top of the list.

I have no experience with the 8-16 sigma so can't say much about that.

I'll skip the canon 8-15 fish eye as it does get boring quite quickly and not many photos will look good with a fish eye.

[camerasnoop]

Thanks Lincoln. Yeah, I looked at that one, but it wasn't rated as highly as the Sigma, believe it or not. I guess it deserves to be included. I wish he'd told me before he bought the 24-70. :angry0: I would have directed him to the 17-55 F2.8. That would have made the choice of buying a wider lens a bit moot I'd guess. Still, he might as well go for broke now. He was muttering about a fusheye (sorry kiwi) and a 70-200 f2.8L as well.

[wideangle]

What about Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 10-20mm, both give you the wide angle perspectives. The Canon 8-15L is a completely different piece of glass in that it provides "fish-eye" images as opposed to Ultra Wide Angle lenses.

[camerasnoop]

Yes I saw it was a fish-eye. Circular and rectilinear. He was after a couple of fast primes too. The Sigma 85 and a 50 1.4. Must be nice to be flush with funds.

That Sigma 8-16 gets a good report here:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc?start=1

[camerasnoop]

What about Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 10-20mm, both give you the wide angle perspectives. The Canon 8-15L is a completely different piece of glass in that it provides "fish-eye" images as opposed to Ultra Wide Angle lenses.


Do you mean this one?

Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM

[peterking]

Not on any of your list but do have on the Cannon EFS 10-22. Very happy with it. I avoided the 8-15 as I wanted to avoid the fisheye.

[ausguitarman]

Had the Tokina 11-16 when I had the 50D. Nice all round lens :th3:.

[camerasnoop]

I guess there are cheaper fisheyes on the market than than the L so if he wants one, he can get one of those. As mentioned already, they don't come out of the bag all that often. Really keen to hear about the Sigma 8-16 though. The more I read about it, the better it looks. There have been a few recent additions to this segment. Some of the ratings on sites seem to be a bit off. I see one rates the 17-35 F2.8L that I have equal to the 16-35 F2.8L II. I'd hope that wasn't the case. My 17-35 is crap in the corners for distortion and CA.

Anyway, updated list for him:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM
Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX

And if he still wants a fish, Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye

He'll have to choose for himself as he won't get his hands on these to try them at Wonthaggi. :D

[LJG]

Another vote for the Canon 10-22. It is a very good lens that delivers great IQ. I don't do a lot of post processing but with that lens on my old 50D I had to do the least PP out of all my lenses.

[ameerat42]

Canon 7D, eh.
I've just been researching the Sigma 8-16. Top in every way, BUT, I don't like the inherent distortion in such a wide rectilinear lens.
Apart from that, it's dead straight, dead sharp, dead "no CA", dead wide...
Here are some images. (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma+8-16&f=hp)
Here is some info. (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/8-16mm-f45-56-dc-hsm-sigma) Forget this RRP, and instead
look at this local price. (http://www.youshop247.com.au/store/search.php?mode=search&page=1)
Am.

[camerasnoop]

Thanks for those links AM. I didn't think of searching FLICKR. It's a slower lens than the others on the list, but some say (sound like Clarkson) it is sharper than any of the others on the list with less CA. All UWA give some distortion. He can fix that in DPP that came with his camera. You're trialling CS6 aren't you? Anything in there for auto perspective correction? That must be next on their list, now that they've got lens profiles for distortion correction.

[ameerat42]

Yep, I was surprised at the pictures from this lens. It was a real goer for me for a good few days until I remembered what was said in
this thread about UWA distortion. (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?101610-Crop-vs-Stitch-Pano)
Then I decided not to get a UWA lens.
I don't know if it'll last, but if I ever do I'll be looking at it again.
Am.

[camerasnoop]

Stitching is fine for UW shots with inanimate objects. It's a bit harder when you have people/animals in it. Odd bodiless heads and stuff appear. Perspective correction and distortion correction can be done in CS5, but for perspective, it often requires individual adjustments and is therefore time-consuming. Having shot some real estate stuff with a 17-35 on a FF, I have to say, that is a mug's game. :D This young bloke is a novice. Only ever had P&S or camera phones before. He'll never be able to do stitching or correction unless it is dead-set easy and automated. Well, not till he learns photoshop. Still he wants to spend the money and get serious, so good luck to him.

[ameerat42]

BTW, Snoopy.
This is a pic taken with that lens (http://g3.img-dpreview.com/CC9E786575BC4107A7B4DA01E4956BC4.jpg) (from another forum) which nearly made me get it...
Am.

[camerasnoop]

Sharp! A Lot of barrel distortion, but CA was pretty good. Looks okay corrected too, but I can't post it up as I don't own it. He'll be able to stand back and fit the whole Duomo in with that.

[Bennymiata]

I was in a similar dilema a while ago.
I read all the reports and went out and tried all the UWA's, and it came down to either the Tokina 11-16 or the Sigma 8-16.

What I didn't like about the Sigma was that you can't put a filter on it, and as I normally use my UWA for outside landscapes, this was a killer as I like to use ND and CPL filters as they can really make an outside shot look good.
And as most of my L lenses have a 77mm diameter, I can use all of my filters on it, and I didn't need to go out and buy a whole new set!
The F2.8 of the Tokina has also come in very handy for use indoors and for doing star pictures too.
The Tokina is very solid and is very sharp with suprisingly little distortion considering its focal length and has excellent colours too.
It does suffer from a bit of fringing at the edges, but only when you have very contrasty things at the periphory, but this is easily fixed in Photoshop or Lightroom.

[dulvariprestige]

The Tokina gets my vote too, very happy with mine, and if he's after a fisheye, maybe look at the Tokina 10-17mm, you could get both the Tokina's for under what the Canon 8-15mm costs

[camerasnoop]

Thanks for all your input. The young bloke has gone against all advice and bought a 16-35 F2.8L II. :D

[dulvariprestige]

:confused013 kind of silly for a 7d, but at least he'll have a great wide angle if he ever decides to go full frame

[camerasnoop]

He's obviously getting advice from someone else. Probably a salesman. :rolleyes: Never mind, I'll make him an offer when he finds it's not wide enough.

[dulvariprestige]

Same thing happened with a friend of mine, he asked me for advice on what camera to buy, one thing he wanted to do was landscapes, I gave him my advice, which was canon or nikon , with a tokina 11-16mm, and maybe something in the 17-55 or 24-70 range, the salesman ended up talking him into an olymus e-p3 with a 14-42 and 40-150mm, I guess i'm bad salesman :confused013