Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

I have the Sigma and use it on the 70D. I think it does a great job

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

Yes.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I think this lens is discontinued and been replaced by the 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM

Bear2 Loc: Southeast,, MI

No I don't, but the Nikkor 10-24 on a DX camera is awesome.
Duane



quote=Crwiwy]Does anyone have hands on experience with Tamron 10 - 24mm and/or Sigma 10 - 20mm Ultra Wide angle lens? Any comparison tests?

I have looked at several reviews and forums and the answers seem very contradictory with some saying Sigma is the sharpest, best and Tamron is soft and others saying the opposite with Tamron being sharpest, best and Sigma being soft.

I appreciate that at this price point the lens will not be perfect but I only want it for shots that I cannot get with my Tamron 18 - 270mm and am not likely to use extensively, so please do not suggest more expensive lens.[/quote]

studavis

If all fails go to a store and put them on your camera. That's why I use a store.

Leitz Loc: Solms

The Tokina 11-16mm/2.8 for Canon does not have a Nikon mount.

Leitz Loc: Solms

The Tokina 11-16mm/2.8 for Canon does not have a Nikon mount.

Leitz Loc: Solms

The Tokina 11-16mm/2.8 for Canon does not have a Nikon mount.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I tried many, but not all of these lenses, also for use on Canon crop camera:

The best value by far is the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM... At $300 US (plus lens hood), it's at least $100 cheaper than the next-cheapest ultrawide. It also has IS, which virtually no other ultrawide has... Not that IS is all that important on an ultrawide, but it certainly can't hurt. I have not personally tested this lens yet, but by all report's like a lot of Canon's entry level lenses, the 10-18mm isn't built to high standards, but has surprisingly good image quality.

IMO, the best ultrawide available for Canon croppers is the Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM. It's mid-grade build (not an L, but equal to most "gold stripe" USM lenses). It has unusually good flare resistance, better than any other UWA I've tried, is very well corrected and quite sharp from corner to corner. New it costs about $650 US (plus lens hood). I have and use one of these lenses now.

The Tokina 12-24/4 is my second choice (and actually was my first choice... see below). It has very good image quality and is quite flare resistant, though not quite as good in either respect as the Canon 10-22mm. I bought one some years ago, used it quite a bit and still have it. For me, 12mm was plenty wide for most things, and I think helps make this one of the least distorting UWA lenses. On the rare occasion when I wanted wider, I used either this lens or others and simply took multiple shots that were later combined using panorama software.

The Toki 12-24 feels like an "L series" build (very similar in size, weight and shape to my old 17-35/2.8L... the same is true of the 11-16/2.8). This lens has been sold in an original version and a Mark II version, but there is almost no difference in the Canon mount (in Nikon mount, the original didn't have built-in motor, like AF-D Nikkor... while the Mark II has the motor, AF-S style... in Nikon mount, both continued to be offered, the original motorless lens as a cheaper alternative). This lens sold for about $550 US new, but was superseded by a 12-28/4 model about a year ago and may only be available used now.

I tested but didn't buy the Tokina 11-16/2.8. It might be the sharpest of all the ultrawides, but is quite prone to flare issues. It is quite popular for astrophotography, but I know several people who tried to use it for general purpose and gave up due to the flare problems. It also has such a narrow range of focal lengths, presumably in order to be able to offer that f2.8 aperture. But, frankly, I see little or no need for f2.8 on an ultrawide, am usually stopping this type lens down in search of max depth of field. These short focal lengths are quite handholdable at very low shutter speeds, but also I'm more inclined to use a tripod for the type of shots I'll do with ultra wide lenses. However, if someone actually needs f2.8 on a UWA for a crop sensor camera, Tokina's are the only ones made. Like the 12-24, it's been offered in original and Mark II versions, and has been superseded by an 11-20/2.8 now, and might only be found used. It originally sold for around $600 US new.

The Tokina 12-28/4 and 11-20/2.8 are relatively new models that I have not had opportunity to try and compare. Note that the Tokina zooms are similar to Nikkors, in that the zoom and focus rings rotate the opposite direction from Canon lenses. I thought this might be a minor issue, but find I really don't notice it in the field. Also, I was a little concerned about focus speed, since Tokina lenses use a micro motor instead of USM-style focus drive. However, I gotta say they are plenty fast focusing... probably because an ultrawide only needs move it's focus group slightly in order to achieve focus... it's not like a macro or a telephoto. Finally, Tokina uses an interested AF/MF switching technique... the entire focus ring slides forward or backward to turn AF on and off. In itself, that's no big deal. But it does mean that there's no Full Time Manual focus possible like there is with USM lenses. Once again this is a rather minor thing, though, in actual use.

I tested but didn't buy the Sigma 10-20mm with the variable aperture. I found its images a little softer than either the Tokina or the Canon. This lens seemed well built, and was priced lower than the Tokina and Canon at the time, but disappointed me with coma and other image issues. To be fair, there might have been a revision of this lens after I tried it... what's offered today may be an improved version... but I'm not certain.

I have not tried the other Sigma 10-20mm, the f3.5, which has been one of the most expensive and largest of the ultrawides... It's also one of the few with a non-variable aperture (along with the Tokina lenses). Reportedly it's a pretty good lens, but it's also the only one of the bunch that requires an 82mm filter (all others I'm aware of use 77mm, except for the Canon 10-18mm that uses a 67mm, and a couple of the Sigma that cannot be fitted with a filter at all).

Sigma also offers the 8-16mm, which is the widest UWA available from anyone. I've played around with it a little and it certainly is fun... but the distortions from such an extreme lens border on what a fisheye does to straight lines. For my purposes, I didn't need the extra width with the stronger distortion. And, this lens has a strongly convex front element, that rules out fitting a standard filter.

And, Sigma offers a 12-24 with variable aperture. This actually is a full frame-capable lens and costs a lot more than any of the above. It would be rather a waste of money to buy one for use only on a crop camera... plus it's not got as qood IQ as some of the crop-only lenses. And it has a convex front element that won't allow filters to be attached. Again, it might have been revised since I did some test shooting with one.

Finally, the Tamron 10-24mm was just being introduced when I tested it. It was quite an improvement over the lens it replaced: 11-18mm Tamron (which was one of the first ultrawides especially designed for crop cameras, was big, heavy and had pretty poor IQ). For a long time the Tamron offered the widest range of focal lengths available in a crop-only UWA... now it's got the Tokina 12-28/4 as competition. I found the 10-24mm to be reasonably good, but a bit more plasticky feeling than some of the other lenses, and images seemed softer in the 20 to 24mm focal lengths.

Ultimately I decided that I liked the Tokina 12-24mm and Canon 10-22mm best of all the above that I was able to compare. I bought the Tokina because it was a couple hundred $ cheaper at the time and used it for several years. Later I was able to pick up the Canon used for good price and did so. I now use it more often, but still keep the Tokina for occasional use and backup.

Some of this is really splitting hairs. All these ultrawides are actually pretty good and will do the job. Today if my budget were tight I'd probably get the Canon 10-18mm, and if money were no object and I wanted the best, I'd probably still buy the Canon 10-22mm... But I'd like to test a couple of the others to be sure... and really all that I have had a chance to use a bit over the years have been pretty close in quality.

Do shop around. There has been quite a shake-up in UWA pricing, ever since Canon announced the 10-18mm IS STM at it's bargain price. The prices of all the other UWAs seem to have had to drop in response (so the approximations I used above in US $ might have little bearing on what you find today).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

No, both 10-20mm Sigmas continue to be available: the cheaper variable aperture version and the more expensive f3.5 version.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Of course it doesn't!

The Tokina 11-16mm (as well as the 12-24/4 and the current 11-20/2.8 and 12-28/4 models) have been offered in both Canon and Nikon mounts.

While a Nikon mount lens can be adapted for use on a Canon, the reverse is not true. Plus, an adapted Nikon mount lens will not be able to autofocus on a Canon, nor will you be able to adjust the lens aperture (unless its an older style lens with the mechanically adjustable aperture.... i.e. with the aperture control ring right on the lens itself).

Further (and again), the original version Toki 11-16mm and 12-24mm in Nikon mount were "motorless", like AF-D lenses, which meant that while they could be fitted and focused manually, they would not autofocus on some of the more entry-level Nikon DSLR bodies (D3200, for example), but would AF fine on some of the more advance Nikon DSLRs (D7200, for example).

The Mark II versions of both Toki 11-16mm and 12-24mm in Nikon mount had a focusing motor added, so that they would autofocus on all Nikon camera bodies. (There were Mark II versions in Canon mount too, but any changes were very minor, supposedly just some improved lens coatings or something like that. Both versions of the Canon mount lenses have a built-in motor to drive AF.)

Both versions continued to be offered in Nikon mount - with the motorless version being a slightly cheaper alternative that higher end DSLR users might choose - up until these lenses were superseded by new models this year. AFAIK, now both the current models (11-20mm and 12-28mm) are ÄF-S type, with built in motor to be able to AF on either type of Nikon camera body.

JMB9250 Loc: Upminster, Essex, UK

I use the Tokina 11-16mm f 2.8 on my Nikon D7000. I would say it is an outstanding lens for landscapes and interiors.

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

I have both--and would recommend them--but the lens i always reach for is the Sigma 8-16--a great lens, and does what the others do better
Stan

stepha11 Loc: Trail British Coluimbia

I have the Nikon 10-24 and like it. I do have Tamron lenses and like them too. I don't think you can go wrong buying the Tamron. You save some money and get a good lens.If you need/want, get it

donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

Thank you!! Have my eye on one. I'll let you know.