Canon EF-S 10-22mm vs. Tokina 11-16mm -> FIGHT!

[kolorange]

Hello, first post.
I have a Canon EOS 60D with a Canon 35mm/f2 prime and I'd like to add a super wide angle lens to my gear.

So far, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm/3.5-4.5 USM and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 have caught my attention.

With my 35mm prime I enjoy doing low-light photography and portraits, and I know these wide-angle lenses aren't meant to be used for these purposes, but then again there is no law that keeps you from trying it (I also plan on using it for its traditional purposes, though). Therefore, I currently lean towards the Tokina for its 2.8 aperture, but that's about the only thing that keeps me from going with the Canon model. I read the reviews on this site and found the sample pictures to be a little mushy and less sharp than the Canon's. Then again, a few were better. So the question for me is: Is the wider aperture an advantage at all if the general image quality is inferior to the Canon lens? I guess for landscape or architecture photography, both should perform well. I have also heard of focusing issues on some of the Tokinas, is that true? Can someone who owns either or both of the lenses nudge me in the right direction? Thanks so much. And if there is another alternative (that is similarly priced) then I'm open for suggestions!

[Sean Setters]

Both lenses have fans. I can only speak from my personal experience. I originally purchased the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 because of its constant, wide aperture. However, after some testing, I was quite disappointed with its autofocus. It required a fairly large AFMA to get decent results, but even then the AF was a bit unpredictable. Image quality was so-so. That said, it is built like a tank--I loved its solid feel. I returned the lens and got another one. My experience with the second one proved very similar. I finally sent back the Tokina and purchased a the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 instead. I've been very happy with it. I don't use a wide-angle lens often; but when I do, I know I've got a lens I can trust.

[neuroanatomist]

Conversely, I only have experience with the Canon 10-22. It is an excellent lens. Having said that, after getting a 5DII I picked up a 16-35mm f/2.8L II (equivalent focal range to 10-22mm on APS-C), and I have found the extra stop of light (give or take 1/3) to be useful (of course, I'm also benefitting from the extra 1.3-stop less ISO noise of FF).

The AF issues mentioned by Sean aside, optically I think it's a wash for these lenses in terms of IQ. So, it comes down to trading a broader focal range for a faster aperture.

[Jayson]

Something else you can consider is the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 Dx II. Is has new coatings and from what I have experienced almost a USM like AF. It has a little noise, but nothing like I was thinking reading the reviews. Sounds kind of like IS in the canon lenses. Mine is very sharp. You can't tell from this size, but it is really sharp and does not show any flare that I could see.

[bigblue1ca]

I happen to have a 60D and the 10-22mm and I find it is a very good lens IQ wise. I find the Canon's 3.5-4.5 aperture vs. the 2.8 isn't a factor for me, because I normally use the lens in good light and if not on a tripod for landscapes, etc. Rent them both and give them a try and see which you prefer.

[kolorange]

I read some more reviews and can't find any noteworthy flaws of the Canon 10-22. It seems to be everyone's first choice when it comes to ultra wide angle lenses. I would personally prefer the faster aperture over the broader focal range, but I guess compared to f/3.5 in the Canon lens, f/2.8 isn't enough of an advantage to take the risk of autofocus issues (reading about it in a review and also in your comment, Sean, kind of scared me off) and so-so image quality. Then again, I stumbled upon the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 EX DC which seems like a good compromise to me. It has almost the same focal range as the Canon, but a fixed aperture, unlike the Canon. Is that one worth a try? Thank you for all the posts so far

[Dr Croubie]

i'm trying to decide in this segment too. in short:
canon: best all-rounder
sigma 10-20 f4-5.6: also good al-rounder
sigma 10-20 f/3.5: better centres, faster aperture, mushy corners at 10mm
tokina 11-16 f/2.8: fast aperture
sigma 8-6: widest and slowest.

For me, it's down to the tokina and sigma 8-16. both seem to have (from reviews i've read) better IQ and less CA than the canon. focussing won't mean much to me because i MF a lot, and even with an f/2.8 aperture and hyperfocal of a few meters i'd probably set up on a tripod for night shots at f/5.6 or so, so the tokina loses its advatages and i'm leaning towards the sigma 8-16. but it's such a tight race between those two and the canon that i'm just going to buy whichever comes along at the best price at the time...
(or wait for the 'does-it-all' 8-20mm f/2.8 with better IQ than all of them and costs twice as much as the others)

[kolorange]

(or wait for the 'does-it-all' 8-20mm f/2.8 with better IQ than all of them and costs twice as much as the others)

Has such a lens actually been announced or is that just a fantasy of yours?

I am currently leaning towards the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 as I am having a hard time noticing a real difference IQ-wise among all the lenses mentioned in this thread so far and after a lot of thinking I came to the conclusion that the Tokina 11-16mm's limited focal range is a bit too short. Thanks for all the replies!

[Sean Setters]

Has such a lens actually been announced or is that just a fantasy of yours?

That was a "tongue-in-cheek" comment...

[Dr Croubie]

Has such a lens actually been announced or is that just a fantasy of yours?

Well, it was a fantasy, but then this goes and appears:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...aspx?News=1855