Which lens is the best for UWA ?

[sirhc_1]

Hi everyone!


I just want to know which one is the best for crop body (1.6) camera. I am actually stuck between the following: Sigma 8mm fisheye, Tokina 17mm AT-X PRO, Tokina 10-17mm DX, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Tokina 12-24, Canon 14mm & 15mm, Canon 10-20, or Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 ZE mount. BTW, Im on a Canon 40D.


I am particular with angle of view but leaning more to IQ as I know I can create a panorama w/ WA lenses. Corner to corner resolution will be the big problem when "de-fishing"a fisheye. Can I have the best of both worlds? (really wide angle FOV & great IQ).


Your suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

[Sean Setters]

I tried two copies of the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and wasn't satisfied with either of them (as they wouldn't focus properly on my 50D). After returning the second Tokina, I bought the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5--and I've been extremely happy with it. My vote goes for the Canon.

[sirhc_1]

Sean, those are great shots by the way! I love the one taken from outside of the car! I'll try to have a look at your suggestion.


It seems that most Canon users are more affected by focusing problems on third party lens manufacturers than Nikon users. I'll probably be sticking with Canon lenses. I hope that's a fair comment.[]

[Sean Setters]

Sean, those are great shots by the way! I love the one taken from outside of the car! I'll try to have a look at your suggestion.


It seems that most Canon users are more affected by focusing problems on third party lens manufacturers than Nikon users. I'll probably be sticking with Canon lenses. I hope that's a fair comment.[img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Honestly, I don't know if Canon cameras have more problems with 3rd party lenses (although I wouldn't doubt it). The reviews I had read regarding the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 had all mentioned how great it was on the 40D. However, it simply didn't focus correctly on my 50D. I decided that since the 50D was the newest camera (at the time), that the Tokina's autofocus wasn't designed withthat particular camerain mind. I likely could have done a microfocus adjustment to correct the problem--that said, the focus was so far off that I'm not sure if microfocus adjustment would have been able to correct the problem completely.


The Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 worked flawlessly from the moment I put it on my camera. While I'm generally not a fan of lenses with a variable maximum aperture, I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the images taken with that lens. And since I'm generally using the lens with wide angle shots in mind,I basically use it like a 10mm f/3.5 prime.

[sirhc_1]

Sean, what's your say on the other UWA &amp; fisheyes I've mentioned above? A friend of mine called me up a while ago &amp; was suggesting the Distagon 21mm. I really haven't seen it yet but it was said to be a "legendary" one during the film camera era &amp; manual focus cameras.

[Sheiky]

I personally wouldn't recommend a fisheye. In my opinion it's a tool for real specific jobs. If you don't plan to use it like that, I wouldn't have bought it.


The 21mm zeiss lens is probably very nice, but only manual focus and really not close to ultra wide on a crop body.


I would recommend a 10-..mm if you want an ultra wide which is still usable for other situations.


Once I read an article about different brands 10-xx lenses and the canon was clearly the winner compared to sharpness. The article is linked somewhere here on the forum. I only had the opportunity to shoot with the Tamron 10-24 which is a very nice lens if I must say. A review:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_10-24_3p5-5p6_n15/It's also a bit cheaper than the canon, but lacks the ultra fast and silent autofocus.

[Jordan]

I'd LOVE to take this one! I have been having this dilemma for months now and own a 50D and 7D. I have used the Sigma 8mm fisheye on a T1i and 50D for a few weeks when I was borrowing it from a friend. It's cool but I think definitely not worth buying unless you do "skater photography" or something. The Tokina 10-17mm fisheye I've owned for over a year now and I LOVE that lens. The only problem is the quality does suffer when you "de-fish" a fisheye... but I think it's great just as is. Problem is - I don't really care for the fisheye effect much. When I DO want it (which is occasionally) I can just use a different UWA and "fisheye" it in software. Results aren't perfect either - but much better than the other way around. Also, the guy I rent my lenses from needs that Tokina real bad for his water-housing. So I figure I'll sell it to him.


The Canon 10-22mm I rented for two and a half weeks when I visited France (where I'll soon be living). I loved the UWA perspective but found the sharpness to be under my standards. As a result, when choosing what to purchase, I ruled that out - despite all the love it's been getting. Sigma's 10-20 I hear good things about - but then again, don't want to deal with Sigma's QC.


This leaves two beautiful choices. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Tokina 12-24mm f/4. I debated between these two for QUITE some time. Having never used either of them, and not having a way to rent them locally, I simply did research on them. I found that the reviews on both were outstanding, though there were far more reviews for the 12-24 as it's a much more popular lens.


I'm a rebel I went with the 11-16mm f/2.8 because I liked that it was fast and sharp. IT IS..... SHARPNESS IS INSANE. Now, this is on my 7D body. I haven't tested it on anything else yet. But I must say... it's fast, excellent IQ, colors, corner to corner sharpness - even wide open! Beautiful lens and I'm happy with my decision.


Take that for what's it worth


- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com

[Sean Setters]

I'm a rebel I went with the 11-16mm f/2.8 because I liked that it was fast and sharp. IT IS..... SHARPNESS IS INSANE. Now, this is on my 7D body. I haven't tested it on anything else yet. But I must say... it's fast, excellent IQ, colors, corner to corner sharpness - even wide open! Beautiful lens and I'm happy with my decision.

And it's possible that I got two copies of the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 from the same batch (as they were purchased from the same retailer) that exhibited sub-par focusing. It should be noted, though, that quality control may be an issue pertaining to that lens in particular. If you decide on the Tokina 11-16mm, just make certain the retailer has a good return policy. You may receive a fantastic copy that surpasses your expectations--or you may get one of the two that I returned. :-)


I will say this--I really liked the Tokina's build quality. It is very heavy (built like a tank).

[Jordan]

Haha! Actually I ALREADY got my lens... about a week ago. So far it's been GREAT. Corner-to-corner sharpness, even wide-open. f/8 seems to be the sweet spot, as with most lenses, but AF seems to be great! Yes, if you got some bad copies, that is something to note, but Sigma is KNOWN for poor QC and I don't think anyone else is... but it's always possible! Dang, even with Canon is a remote possibility. Maybe that was the reason I didn't like the Canon I used.

[Brendan7]

Hi everyone!


I just want to know which one is the best for crop body (1.6) camera. I am actually stuck between the following: Sigma 8mm fisheye, Tokina 17mm AT-X PRO, Tokina 10-17mm DX, Tokina 11-16 2.8, Tokina 12-24, Canon 14mm &amp; 15mm, Canon 10-20, or Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 ZE mount. BTW, Im on a Canon 40D.


I am particular with angle of view but leaning more to IQ as I know I can create a panorama w/ WA lenses. Corner to corner resolution will be the big problem when "de-fishing"a fisheye. Can I have the best of both worlds? (really wide angle FOV &amp; great IQ).


Your suggestions are highly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

The Canon 14mm would probably be the best choice, as it offers the best IQ and build quality and you would still be able to use it when you upgraded to FF. If you have $2000, absolutely go for the canon 14mm f/2.8.


If that's too much $$$ the Canon 10-22 is another good option. The Zeiss is equivalent to 33mm on a 1.6 body; this isn't "UWA". Manual focus doesn't help. Sigma, Tokina and Tamron make nice lenses, but most of the time it's worth just forking it out for the Canon lens. There are exceptions, but Canon has two great options here.


brendan