Looking at UWAs - A few choices...

[Cafeen]

So, with my stupidly high amount of OT over the past 2 weeks being tossed into the check I get right before my trip, I may very well be in the market for a UWA lens to add to my kit.

I'm looking at 3 in particular...
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 (~$650)
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (~$470)
Tonika 11-16mm f/2.8 (~$660 at B&H, but out of stock, or ~$775 at Amazon..)

As far as shooting, I'm nothing special. It's just a hobby, but one I enjoy immensely. My current kit is the Canon T1i, 18-55mm Kit, 55-250 EF-S (the cheap one, that focuses slower than anything, but has its place), and the 50mm f/1.8.

I'm leaning toward the middle one (in the list, the cheapest in price), but unsure if it would be worth the extra cash for the slightly faster, and constant Sigma. The Tonika seems real nice, but at over $100 more from Amazon vs. B&H, not sure if that's going to be worthwhile either. I think if it wasn't back ordered, then it'd be the most likely candidate as an f/2.8 throughout seems more worth the extra $180 than 3.5 does (not that there's REALLY much difference), but the stock situation has me concerned that I wouldn't get it in time for the trip.

So, thoughts, experiences, is my thinking straight? I know that I can't go wrong with any of them, but there's gotta be one that's more right than the others for me right?

I guess another option would be the Tonika 10-17mm Fisheye, but not sure if that's worth the ~$600 compared to the Sigma f/4-5.6's $480 price tag. And not too keen if the Fisheye effect will be more pronounced than the other UWAs.

 

[zackiedawg]

If you're looking for cheap options, might be worth also throwing the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 into the mix - it's a solid choice as well, and decently fast...I've seen them on sale in the $400 or less arena. I've had one for 3 years, and it's served me well.

From what I've heard, there isn't enough of a difference between the original Sigma 10-20, and the constant aperture version, to justify the price.

The Tokina 11-16 is well reviewed and well liked, as is the Tamron.

Personally I prefer the rectilinear over the fisheyes - I like the straight lines. Just about the only thing I favored the Tamron for over the Sigma was the horizontal curvature - the Tamron seemed to have a very straight, well corrected horizon line with an easily correctable barrel curve, whereas the Sigma had an odd, complex compound curve, straighter in the middle and much more curved at either end which is hard to correct for in post processing.

You won't go too far wrong with any of them. They're all capable, and all fun!

 

[WDWFigment]

My recommendation would be the Sigma 8-16mm.

 

[Cafeen]

If you're looking for cheap options, might be worth also throwing the Tamron 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 into the mix - it's a solid choice as well, and decently fast...I've seen them on sale in the $400 or less arena. I've had one for 3 years, and it's served me well.

From what I've heard, there isn't enough of a difference between the original Sigma 10-20, and the constant aperture version, to justify the price.

The Tokina 11-16 is well reviewed and well liked, as is the Tamron.

Thanks for the input, as well as expanding the list! I had pretty much figured that with the Sigma 10-20, but as I'm far from well versed on these things, and have 0 experience with lenses outside of the 3 I have (my 35mm kit also was just short kit + long "kit"). They're all within a couple hundred of each other too, which makes things that much more difficult for me (not having access to anyone who has anything like this.)

I know I'll get something good no matter which I choose, so it's not that big of a deal, but that doesn't help my indecisiveness

Personally I prefer the rectilinear over the fisheyes - I like the straight lines. Just about the only thing I favored the Tamron for over the Sigma was the horizontal curvature - the Tamron seemed to have a very straight, well corrected horizon line with an easily correctable barrel curve, whereas the Sigma had an odd, complex compound curve, straighter in the middle and much more curved at either end which is hard to correct for in post processing.

You won't go too far wrong with any of them. They're all capable, and all fun!

That's pretty much the same thing I'm looking for. I like the fisheye effect, but not for every wide shot I want to take. I think if I wanted "real" fisheye, I'd drop down to that $289 Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 (or other identical brand) manual focus one.

My recommendation would be the Sigma 8-16mm.

Thanks. I looked at this one too and it's made the list...

So, instead of whittling down the list... it's grown.

Right now, leaning between the Tamron 10-24 and Sigma 8-16. If I actually had a style and such, that would likely make it easier .

Thanks for the input guys. If anyone else has any, please let me know. I know I could rent and try before I buy, but if I'm going to buy one anyway, it seems like a bit of a waste (and without history, or a home phone, or any credit (not bad, just none), I don't feel like jumping through hoops for an online company, and without a car it makes it tough to get down to the local camera shop)

 

[photo_chick]

The Sigma 8-16 gets my vote. I'm still not a Sigma fan, but it's a really nice lens and that's a great range for an UWA on a crop body.

 

[WDWFigment]

^With the exception of this and the 30mm f/1.4, and a few lenses in their EX line, I don't really care for Sigma, either (why the 8-16mm isn't EX, I don't know, as it's one heck of a lens).

I've only touched the Tamron briefly myself, but I wasn't really that impressed. It does what it does okay, but unless you want a lot of range (not really necessary from an UWA in my opinion) there are better options out there.

As far as third party lenses go, I think the only ones worth considering at the Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 8-16. Those are stark contrasts to one another, but both are great.

 

[WDWFigment]

Here are a few sample shots I've taken with the Sigma:


Walkin' Right Down The Middle Of Main Street, USA! by Tom Bricker (WDWFigment), on Flickr


Disney's Contemporary Resort by Tom Bricker (WDWFigment), on Flickr


A Midsummer Night's Polynesian Dream by Tom Bricker (WDWFigment), on Flickr


The Backside of Partners by Tom Bricker (WDWFigment), on Flickr


Cinderella Castle: Through The Eyes Of A Child by Tom Bricker (WDWFigment), on Flickr

 

[zackiedawg]

Well, the photographer has a fair share to do with it too! Your samples are lovely, but I think you'd have done just as well with any of the lenses to be fair. And you are skilled with post processing which helps.

The Tamron is in my experience better than the Sigma 10-20mm, and each has some advantages and disadvantages - in the end I think they're all close enough performers that someone could be quite happy with any of them. Just to give the Tamron a fair shake, here are some straight-from-camera JPG samples from it:

 

[WDWFigment]

^Yes, in all fairness, I haven't compared it to the 10-20 Sigma.

I've used the Nikon 12-24, 10-24, plus the three lenses mentioned so far. Nikons aside, I'd rank them as follows, for the following reasons:

1. Sigma 8-16 - it's all about the range. 2mm is HUGE in UWA terms.
2. Tokina 11-16mm - f/2.8, super sharp, and accepts filters.
3. Tamron - no slouch, but it's biggest strength (imo) is its range, and that does absolutely nothing for me *personally* since I usually shoot as wide as possible.

The Nikons are nice, but irrelevant to a Canon user (and overpriced, in my opinion).

 

[Cafeen]

Thanks for the suggestions and especially the examples. I think I'm going to go for the Sigma 8-16 for this trip as I do like the effects that it's giving a bit more. If I don't like it, it just means I get another lens later (or heck, we all know that the excuse isn't even needed for that).

Thanks again guys. Now just the wait for this > 2x check to drop on the 15th, just in time for my trip on the 22nd.

 

[PrincessInOz]

And all this while I've been thinking it was the (focal) length...and possibly the depth (of field) that was important.


You boys are now telling me its all about the width??.....

 

[kshark]

I would stay away from the Tokina. I had it for about a year and finally sold it because the chromatic aberration was driving me nuts. It really is that bad and adds tons of time to your post processing workflow and even then most times there are still visible issues. For a Canon shooter, the Canon 10-22 is a great choice, albeit an expensive one. I've seen great shots from Sigma ultrawides, however, so that would be my second choice.

 

[AbbysFamily]

I would stay away from the Tokina. I had it for about a year and finally sold it because the chromatic aberration was driving me nuts. It really is that bad and adds tons of time to your post processing workflow and even then most times there are still visible issues. For a Canon shooter, the Canon 10-22 is a great choice, albeit an expensive one. I've seen great shots from Sigma ultrawides, however, so that would be my second choice.

Can you show some examples of this? Maybe even right from the camera and how you corrected? I'm really thinking of the Tokina because of its speed and sharpness. This is the first that I read that makes me doubt it.

 

[kshark]

I certainly will not argue with the speed and sharpness of the Tokina. Many of my favorite shots were taken with this lens. Here's an example of a handheld shot with the Tokina:


The Lobby by Brett Kiger, on Flickr

And, an HDR taken on a tripod:


Spaceship Earth by Brett Kiger, on Flickr

The CA can be a problem if you are shooting a backlight scene. Here's an example straight out of the camera:

Here's an attempt at a quick correction. The CA is often much too bad for Lightroom to handle. The only thing that I have found that can minimize the CA when it is this bad is to use "Replace Color" in Photoshop. You can either attempt to make the CA look more like the sky or the foreground, or sometimes a mix of the two. While the funky edge is still there, the mismatched color doesn't jump out at normal viewing distances as much.

I enjoy realistic HDR photography which tends to magnify CA anyway, so this becomes a real issue with the Tokina.

The Tokina also tends to flare very easily. You can use this your advantage creatively such as the shot below....


Minnehaha Falls by Brett Kiger, on Flickr

...but, sometimes it gets in the way too (bumper).

Overall, I will not say the Tokina is horrible lens, it just didn't meet my needs. Yes, the speed and sharpness were nice, but some of the other quicks led me to try something else. I will add that the focus ring broke on mine (stuck) for no apparent reason during our last Disney vacation which was also a disappointment. With the Tokina broken, I rented the Canon 10-22 and didn't want to give it back.

Tokina's warranty department, however, was responsive and had the lens back to me in about 2 weeks.

For good measure, here's a few samples from the Canon 10-22:


The Most Grotesque Monstrosity of All... by Brett Kiger, on Flickr


Disney's Wilderness Lodge by Brett Kiger, on Flickr

There's something about the look of the Canon shots that I just prefer. It's only 2/3 of a stop slower on the wide end, and the max zoom of 22mm makes the lens a bit more versatile. In a situation like Disney, I don't like to change lenses often so this can be an advantage.

Hope this helps...

 

[zackiedawg]

Thanks for the suggestions and especially the examples. I think I'm going to go for the Sigma 8-16 for this trip as I do like the effects that it's giving a bit more.

Just wanted to make sure you realize that your shots aren't going to look like Tom's with the 8-16mm out of the camera! You mention liking the effects it's giving more - but just wanted to make sure you realize Tom's shots are massively processed on the computer, so what you get will actually be more like the ones I posted (mine are straight from the camera with no processing). If you like Tom's look, you will definitely need to be good with post processing skills or have good RAW, HDR, or Tone mapping software.

Just a heads up in case it wasn't obvious. As for the Sigma 8-16, it looks like an awesome lens and the extra width is amazing...if you don't mind spending more for it, it certainly should be a very capable and very fun lens.

 

[AbbysFamily]

Thanks for the examples! Now I really don't know what to do

I do think I'm going to rent one of these for my next disney trip before I make my final decision of a purchase. I'm going to have to look more at some straight out of the camera of both to see which I really want with me for my style of shooting.

Now if I could just win the lottery so I could have unlimited trips to the happiest place on earth, and I could buy both

 

[Cafeen]

I certainly will not argue with the speed and sharpness of the Tokina. Many of my favorite shots were taken with this lens. Here's an example of a handheld shot with the Tokina:

The CA can be a problem if you are shooting a backlight scene. Here's an example straight out of the camera:

Here's an attempt at a quick correction. The CA is often much too bad for Lightroom to handle. The only thing that I have found that can minimize the CA when it is this bad is to use "Replace Color" in Photoshop. You can either attempt to make the CA look more like the sky or the foreground, or sometimes a mix of the two. While the funky edge is still there, the mismatched color doesn't jump out at normal viewing distances as much.

I enjoy realistic HDR photography which tends to magnify CA anyway, so this becomes a real issue with the Tokina.

The Tokina also tends to flare very easily. You can use this your advantage creatively such as the shot below....

Overall, I will not say the Tokina is horrible lens, it just didn't meet my needs. Yes, the speed and sharpness were nice, but some of the other quicks led me to try something else. I will add that the focus ring broke on mine (stuck) for no apparent reason during our last Disney vacation which was also a disappointment. With the Tokina broken, I rented the Canon 10-22 and didn't want to give it back.

Tokina's warranty department, however, was responsive and had the lens back to me in about 2 weeks.

For good measure, here's a few samples from the Canon 10-22:

There's something about the look of the Canon shots that I just prefer. It's only 2/3 of a stop slower on the wide end, and the max zoom of 22mm makes the lens a bit more versatile. In a situation like Disney, I don't like to change lenses often so this can be an advantage.

Hope this helps...

Thanks, I looked at the Canon and it's just a touch out of my price range. In truth, the Sigma 8-16 is pretty much at the upper limit.

Just wanted to make sure you realize that your shots aren't going to look like Tom's with the 8-16mm out of the camera! You mention liking the effects it's giving more - but just wanted to make sure you realize Tom's shots are massively processed on the computer, so what you get will actually be more like the ones I posted (mine are straight from the camera with no processing). If you like Tom's look, you will definitely need to be good with post processing skills or have good RAW, HDR, or Tone mapping software.

Just a heads up in case it wasn't obvious. As for the Sigma 8-16, it looks like an awesome lens and the extra width is amazing...if you don't mind spending more for it, it certainly should be a very capable and very fun lens.

For sure, unclear use of the word "effects" on my part there. I meant more the look of the angles and such, which (as far as I know) can't be redone in PP (at least, still calling it a photograph ) rather than the lighting or other development/PP effects.

I am wondering how it shoots at 16 as well, as if it's a bit less pronounced that'll be perfect. If it's not, that's fine too .

 

[WDWFigment]

Yeah, it is worth noting that all of my photos have been processed. That said, very few photographers post photos online without some degree of processing.

For what it's worth, none of the photos I posted have been tone-mapped or have had much work put into them. I think they were all 5 minute or less jobs in Adobe Camera Raw.

 

[zackiedawg]

I didn't mean it as a criticism at all Tom, by the way - your skill is quite good with processing - you know how to tweak and get a very vibrant look out of your shots - I just didn't want anyone to think that the lens alone was going to produce those shots right out of the camera. To the OP - I figured you knew - but just wanted to be sure - it was that 'effects' word that threw me! It sounds like such a little difference between 8mm, 10mm, 11mm, etc - but the differences at the wide end are huge compared to differences at the telephoto end - the angle of view that 8mm will give is pretty drastically different from the 10s and 11s, so indeed you can probably get some fantastic forced perspective and get astoundingly close to subjects. I know already what I can get out of a 10mm compared to a 12mm, so the jump to 8mm is even more drastic!

 

[GrumpyGoat]

So, with my stupidly high amount of OT over the past 2 weeks being tossed into the check I get right before my trip, I may very well be in the market for a UWA lens to add to my kit.

I'm looking at 3 in particular...
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 (~$650)
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (~$470)
Tonika 11-16mm f/2.8 (~$660 at B&H, but out of stock, or ~$775 at Amazon..)

As far as shooting, I'm nothing special. It's just a hobby, but one I enjoy immensely. My current kit is the Canon T1i, 18-55mm Kit, 55-250 EF-S (the cheap one, that focuses slower than anything, but has its place), and the 50mm f/1.8.

I'm leaning toward the middle one (in the list, the cheapest in price), but unsure if it would be worth the extra cash for the slightly faster, and constant Sigma. The Tonika seems real nice, but at over $100 more from Amazon vs. B&H, not sure if that's going to be worthwhile either. I think if it wasn't back ordered, then it'd be the most likely candidate as an f/2.8 throughout seems more worth the extra $180 than 3.5 does (not that there's REALLY much difference), but the stock situation has me concerned that I wouldn't get it in time for the trip.

So, thoughts, experiences, is my thinking straight? I know that I can't go wrong with any of them, but there's gotta be one that's more right than the others for me right?

I guess another option would be the Tonika 10-17mm Fisheye, but not sure if that's worth the ~$600 compared to the Sigma f/4-5.6's $480 price tag. And not too keen if the Fisheye effect will be more pronounced than the other UWAs.

Of the three choices listed, I would select the Tokina 11-16 for the f2.8 maximum aperture. Even though they have similar focal lengths, all the others are slower and I've been shooting with f2.8 lenses for so long now, I hate to use anything else.