POVDOV wrote:
I have been torturing myself looking for a well built, picture sharp wide angle lens in 15 mm or lower. It could be a zoom with the low end being 15 mm or lower. Of course I would prefer not to pay L lens premiums if possible. It would be nice to be at least F 2.8 or 4.0. I know I'm a dreamer counting pixels in my sleep. Thanks for any help I can get.
If you must have f/2.8, you have choice of....
1. Tokina AT-X Pro 11-28mm zoom... $469. Check the reviews, I've never tested one. It appears larger than most (82mm filters). Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is an earlier model, sharp but extremely susceptible to flare. I have heard the newer lens improves on this.
2. Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8... $399 (chipped version). This lens sells under other names such as Bower, Vivitar (who call it a 13mm) and more. IT IS A MANUAL FOCUS, MANUAL APERTURE LENS. As such, it's slower to work with and limits you to using Manual, M with Auto ISO, or Av exposure modes (Tv and P cannot be used, nor can full "Auto" or any of the "scene" mode presets). There is a cheaper version without a "chip", but I recommend spending the little bit extra for the version with chip, which allows the camera's Focus Confirmation to help with manual focus. This lens is full frame capable. If you buy this lens, test it carefully. Quality control problems have been noted by users.... usually uneven sharpness across the image area, suggesting a de-centered lens element. Sometimes it's necessary to swap an unacceptable lens for another copy, but after that many users are happy with it.
3. Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM... $2099. Great lens, full frame capable, but WAAAAYYY expensive.
4. Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon... $1879 (after more than $1000 discount!).... Superb lens, full frame capable, manual focus only.
5. Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Milvus... $2699. Another high priced, premium lens, manual focus only.
If you can live with f/4, there are...
6. Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 HSM... $399. Used to be a lot more expensive, but they are now discounting it a lot. It's one of the larger, heavier lenses of this type. There was also an earlier one with a slower, variable aperture (f/4.5-5.6, if memory serves), a bit smaller, lighter and with pretty good image quality, but no longer available new... only used.
7. Tokina AT-X Pro 12-28mm f/4... $430. Seems a very nice lens, though I haven't used it personally. It's a little smaller, lighter than the 11-20mm, but still has the look and feel of a Canon L-series. There was an earlier 12-24mm version, which I used for a number of years and found to be pretty good (I chose it for it's build, price and image quality, after comparing to Sigma 10-20mm, Tokina 11-16mm, Tamron 10-24mm and Canon EF-S 10-22mm).
8. Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM... $399. Used to be a lot more expensive, but is currently discounted. This lens has good build quality and the best image quality of any of the ultrawides. It's sharp from corner to corner and better corrected than any of the others. It also is the most flare resistant. I replaced my Tokina 12-24mm with this Canon lens when I had opportunity to buy a used one at a reasonable price. At the 22mm end, it's 1/3 stop slower than you'd like... but I've never found that to be a problem. With ultrawides, I'm stopping down to f/5.6 or a little smaller most of the time, anyway. That's just in the nature of how this type of lens is usually used. (An exception might be someone doing astral or other night photography, who wants an f/2.8 lens for a brighter viewfinder... but Live View can compensate for a slower lens even in those situations.) I also originally wanted a non-variable aperture lens, which the Tokina offered, because it's easier to use with manual flash and studio strobes. However, I found I actually never used this lens for that type of shooting (I tend to use primes and short telephotos or macro in studio, far more than I use an ultrawide... also, once a variable aperture lens is set to stop down, the variable aperture won't matter even with manual strobes and flash.) The only thing I don't like about this lens is it's matched hood, which is quite large (however, it's also important and effective... so I use it.)
9. Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 VC HLD.... $499. This is currently the only other ultrawide for Canon that has image stabilization. I haven't used it, so can't say how it performs or its image quality. I wasn't impressed with the image quality of the Tamron 10-24mm that preceded it. I felt the Sigma and especially the Tokina and Canon all had better IQ. I do use a couple Tamron macro lenses and have been pretty happy with them.
10. Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L USM... $1249. It's an ultrawide, but it's a FISHEYE with strong distortion effects. If you shop used, you'll also find a now discontinued Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 fisheye.
Slower lenses include....
11. Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM... $269. This is the smallest, lightest and least expensive lens of this type. It also was the first ultrawide with IS and still is one of only a few that have that have stabilization. It's pretty plasticky, but that's what makes it affordable and keeps the weight down. It has surprisingly good image quality for such a low-cost lens... equal to the more expensive Canon 10-22mm... making it one of the very best available. This lens was a major breakthrough when Canon intro'd it a couple years ago... it's the reason many of the other lenses listed here are now discounted. Nikon copied Canon and intro'd their own inexpensive Nikkor 10-20mm VR ($307)... The other ultrawide Nikkors are better built, but are ridiculously expensive: 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 for almost $900 and 12-24mm f/4 for $1147! Of course, they're irrelevant because they won't even fit a Canon 7D Mark II.
12. Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM... $569. This is the widest of the ultrawides (short of a fisheye lens). It's got pretty heavy wide angle exaggeration and distortion effects, so be sure it's what you really want.
Some of the lenses mentioned have convex front elements that preclude using standard filters with them. In some cases there are special filter holders offered... but those and the oversize filters they use add a lot of cost.
#8... the Canon EF-S 10-22mm... is what I use and am quite happy with. But for various reasons, you may want to consider some of the others. And, frankly, I haven't compared them all!
Have fun shopping!
EDIT:
rcarol wrote:
I have the Tokina 11-18mm F2.8 and love the IQ from this lens. Many hoggers use this lens and I'm surprised that I'm the first to suggest it.
There's no such lens.... there's a Tokina 11-
16mm f/2.8, which I mentioned above. Yes, it's quite sharp. BUT, it's also got the narrowest range of focal lengths of any of the UWA lenses... AND it's the most prone to problems with flare. I know folks who tried to use it, but gave up because of the flare and returned or traded it for something else. In contrast, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm is the MOST flare resistant of the UWA zooms. To be fair, I have not tried and compared the newer Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8, which superseded the 11-16mm, supposedly handles flare better and obviously improves upon the focal length range as well.
The older Tokina 11-16mm was the only f/2.8 UWA for APS-C cameras for many years... and it's quite popular among night shooters for that larger aperture and its sharpness. Astral or aurora photography rarely have to deal with flare problems. However, one photog I know tried it but stopped using it for night time cityscapes, due to the lens' susceptibility to flare.
I opted for the Tokina 12-24mm f/4, in part for it's better resistance to flare (also a lower price at the time... plus I really didn't NEED f/2.8). However, I've more recently switched to the Canon EF-S 10-22mm because it's even more resistant to flare, sharper from corner to corner and has almost no chromatic aberration, while the Toki 12-24mm has some.