UWA lens for Canon DSLR
Posted by: JamieWednesday on 04 December 2010
I figured some time ago I'd like one of these, landscape and architecture photography and for HD video of kids etc. and could have really used it yesterday while out and about.
Stacks of commentary on web already. I have 7D and am unlikely to be moving to full frame,
I've decided it's between:
Canon 10-22mm - trusted brand, useful range, quality user reviews along lines of almost 'L' quality etc.
Tokina 11-16mm - good reviews again, build quality good, less useful range but 2.8 all the way
Sample of pictures taken with both are good. One dealer recommended Tokina, the other Canon! I suspect I will get a good, useful product either way.
(Lots of ref. to Sigma alternatives but the same old issues of flakey quality show up too often)
Both handle well, I just can't make up my mind, if I bought the Canon, would I miss the extra stop of the Tokina, if I bought the Tokina, would I miss that slightly greater range of the Canon? Despite my temptation to stick with the Canon product all the way, I'm tempted to think I'd use the 2.8 over 3.5 for those low light, evening shots more than the 10 mmm over 11mm. I look at it like this, if the Canon didn't exist and I had the Tokina, would I be wishing for 10mm? If I had the Canon and Tokina didn't exist, would I be wishing for the extra stop?
Before plumping for one, thought I'd test the forum waters to see if anyone's got any practical experience?
Stacks of commentary on web already. I have 7D and am unlikely to be moving to full frame,
I've decided it's between:
Canon 10-22mm - trusted brand, useful range, quality user reviews along lines of almost 'L' quality etc.
Tokina 11-16mm - good reviews again, build quality good, less useful range but 2.8 all the way
Sample of pictures taken with both are good. One dealer recommended Tokina, the other Canon! I suspect I will get a good, useful product either way.
(Lots of ref. to Sigma alternatives but the same old issues of flakey quality show up too often)
Both handle well, I just can't make up my mind, if I bought the Canon, would I miss the extra stop of the Tokina, if I bought the Tokina, would I miss that slightly greater range of the Canon? Despite my temptation to stick with the Canon product all the way, I'm tempted to think I'd use the 2.8 over 3.5 for those low light, evening shots more than the 10 mmm over 11mm. I look at it like this, if the Canon didn't exist and I had the Tokina, would I be wishing for 10mm? If I had the Canon and Tokina didn't exist, would I be wishing for the extra stop?
Before plumping for one, thought I'd test the forum waters to see if anyone's got any practical experience?