Corner peformance?

[SHOOD]

guys im lookinmg at buying a wide angle lens for my 40D
so either the 10 22 canon
the 10 20 sigma
or the tokina 11 18

i va elooked at all three and in one the Sigma it mentions poor corner performance
what is this and how will it affect my shooting?

[arthurking83]

Courtesy of PhotoZone:

#1!! .... Tokina 11-16/f/2.8

second place:

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6.

I've had the Sigma for about 4years now, and know it pretty well.

Corner performance is not an issue.

extreme, extreme corner performance.. and I'm referring to the final 2% deep in the very corner, is always not going to be good with such extreme optics, but anything from approx 2-5% of the very extreme corners works well, if I need it too.

A few years back now, I also had a chance to test the Tokina 11-16, and I have to say it was a great lens. Bokeh at f/4 is a lot better than the Sigma(but then again, who buys a UWA lens for bokeh huh? :rolleyes:). Having the f/2.8 was also a super handy feature as well, and for a long time, i considered getting one myself.. but with the imminent arrival of a decently priced full frame camera for Nikon, I thought it was better to hold onto that money for my eventual move to fullframe and even wider and better quality gear.

if you have no plans on eventually moving to full frame, go with the Tokina.. no questions! the best UWA lens for APS-C sensors.

If you think you may eventually go to full fr5ame as well.. but really want an UWA lens NOW!! save your money, and get the Sigma. I believe they generally sell for at least 4300 or so less than the Canon or Tokina lenses.

The difference in corner performance is not worth the money. The Sigma will hold it's own against the Tokina in 99.99% of normal usage. Why I'd have liked the Tokina is simply the faster aperture and slightly better bokeh at f/4-5.6.

If I were to base my opinion of the two purely on image quality issues such as sharpness, corner sharpness alone... the Sigma is close enough to what the Tokina can do that the Tokina would have not been an option due to it's (then) much, much higher price tag.
Sigma is much better at controlling CA.... even though the CA in the Tokina images were minimal and so easily correctable.

never had any real experience with the Canon 10-22, other than seeing and briefly playing with (member)Etherial's copy a long time ago, on his camera.

Note there is a constant f/3.5 version of the Sigma 10-20mm lens too, and both the test and the user report I've read on it indicates that it's not as good as it's slower and cheaper brother! :confused:

[SHOOD]

i read the same review and i agree with you. mmmm
well i might get the Sigma for now i can always re sell it
best thing ive noticed about lenses is that their value stays!

[Wobbles]

Hi Shood,
you might want to consider the new Sigma 8-16 for a UUWA! It's getting pretty good reviews, but I'm yet to see one "in the flesh". The Toki has the best optics of the other three, Canon is the best 'all round' performer and the Sigma is the best value. There's a good comparissons here http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/uwatest and http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/1022v1116

Cheers
John

[SHOOD]

i saw
but for $800 looks Very nice though