After a widey - but which one??

[kybo]

I've read so many reviews I'm going and I still don't know which to choose.

From what I've read, the main contenders are
Sigma 10-20mm
Canon 10-22mm
Tokina 11-16mm

Unfortunately, having read so many reviews, I've read pros and cons for each and am as undecided as I was before I started looking.

Got a budget of around £300 (£350 absolute top-end) so have ruled out the Sigma 8-16mm. Pretty much looking second hand, anything I should look for?

Any hidden gems I've missed?

So, as I value your opinions/comments I'd like to know which you have, why you like it and what you use it for?

I've had a 20 minute play with the Sigma 10-20mm - loved it at 10mm but found it just plain normal at 20mm. Is this to be expected?

I'll use it for occasional landscape and architectural work but primarily for Motorsport photography.

Many thanks,
Scott

[DibblyDobbler]

Don't sweat it they're all good

I had the Sigma then upgraded to the more expensive Canon and did not notice much improvement. I hear the Toki is good too!

What sort of Motorsport do you need an ultrawide for though

[IanMorewood]

The Tokina is the one I almost bought, couldn't justify the cost at the time.

[CommanderJameson]

Unless you mean getting up close and personal with the cars in the paddock, the 10-22 will be utterly, utterly hopeless for conventional motorsport photography.

[RobDickinson]

Sigma is the cheapest, 11-16 the fastest and the Canon will have the best focusing

[JohnS]

A wide angle lens is of limited use for motorsport photography unless it's for paddock and pit lane shots. I took this one last month using my 17-40mm, and this was taken at 40mm. I was standing about 10 feet from the edge of the track between the hay bales. I only took a few as the keeper rate is very low and hard to get the car sharp at very low shutter speeds as can be seen by the blurry mess of a car in my shot



For moving cars, I can't image you wanting to go any wider unless you are just a few feet from them.

I then tried my 24-105 and got the car slightly sharper, albeit using a 1/80th shutter speed instead of 1/40th.

Edited by JohnS on Thursday 1st August 08:46

[kybo]

DibblyDobbler said:

Don't sweat it they're all good

I had the Sigma then upgraded to the more expensive Canon and did not notice much improvement. I hear the Toki is good too!

What sort of Motorsport do you need an ultrawide for though

It will be for Paddock, garage and static pit lane stuff. I'll also use it for car shows and exhibitions. When quite close to the track a mate of mine pans with the Sigma, to try and get weird effects with packed car shots - makes his head spin after a while, tho

I like the prime aperture of the Tokina but not sure that 11-16mm gives enough focal variation.

The Sigma is, of course, cheaper than the Canon and if there's not much difference in quality I may well plump for that lens. Is CA something to consider, though? Is one worse than the other?

If the cost difference is not that much should I just go with the Canon coz it's Canon?

Thanks again,
Scott

[Harry Flashman]

I bought the Tokina for a Nikon.

It is really, really good. Yet to try out wide astrophotography with it though, which is what I really bought it for.

Wide angles are a whole new ball game. I have a lot of learning/experimenting to do...not sure what I'd use if for on a motorsport basis. It just makes everything too far away!

Some shots taken with it:

These trees were only about 5 metres away! Note the lenses distortion effects when this wide (I didn't correct as I liked it!)


DSC_0231.jpg by baconrashers, on Flickr




DSC_0257.jpg by baconrashers, on Flickr




DSC_0002.jpg by baconrashers, on Flickr



DSC_0451-2.jpg by baconrashers, on Flickr

Edited by Harry Flashman on Thursday 1st August 09:29

[DibblyDobbler]

If money was no object I'd probably advise the 10-22 (albeit I personally didn't find it noticeably better than the 10-20). On a budget I'd definitely go for the 10-20 of these two.

The Toki is meant to be very good but has little range - I really don't think it would be a bad choice either!

Have a hunt on eBay for all 3 and see if there's one which jumps out at you as a good deal ?

[Number31]

CommanderJameson said:

Unless you mean getting up close and personal with the cars in the paddock, the 10-22 will be utterly, utterly hopeless for conventional motorsport photography.

I must be unconventional then!

Number31

Edited by Number31 on Thursday 1st August 18:08

[mike80]

I'm selling a Sigma 10-20 if that's any help!

[...Mole...]

another vote for wideangle motorsport, although Ive only tried once a long time back when all i had was the Sigma 10-20mm.

[CommanderJameson]

>gets back in box, goes back to taking pictures of grass, rocks and water<

[tenohfive]

I've got the Tokina. I ummmed and arrred between the Tokina and the Canon - I dismissed the Sigma due to rumblings about poor quality control (if you get a good one it's good, but there's no guarantee you will.) Both are referred to as being very sharp. The Tokina is faster, the Canon has a bigger range - but that 18-22mm range I've got covered by other lenses, so I didn't think I'd miss it. I was right.

It's excellent. The built quality is excellent - and it feels very good to handle, and has survived more drops than I should admit to with no damage - it's built like a tank. The IQ is excellent, it's a very sharp lens. Whilst the speed wasn't a deciding factor (I bought it for landscapes) I've found myself using it a lot for indoor portraits and the results have been surprisingly good.

I don't think you'll be unhappy with either the Canon or the Tokina but my vote is very firmly for the Tokina.

[kybo]

mike80 said:

I'm selling a Sigma 10-20 if that's any help!

Mike,

Can you pm me some details:
Spec
quality
price
etc.

please?

[kybo]

Thanks to Harry and TenOh for throwing the Tokina back into the mix (I was swaying toward the Sigma, but now not sure)

Liking those shots Mole so the Sigma is not out of it, just yet.

I hate to admit it, but I think the purchase will go down to cost, as does most everything it seems

So currently with Sigma or Tokina (unless a Canon falls into my lap)
Thanks,
Scott

[kybo]

tenohfive said:

The Tokina is faster, the Canon has a bigger range - but that 18-22mm range I've got covered by other lenses, so I didn't think I'd miss it. I was right.

TenOhFive,

My next widest lens is at 17mm, so would you say that the Tokina would fit nicely there? Or should you always have a bit of an overlap?

Many thanks,
Scott

[Harry Flashman]

tenohfive said:

I've got the Tokina. I ummmed and arrred between the Tokina and the Canon - I dismissed the Sigma due to rumblings about poor quality control (if you get a good one it's good, but there's no guarantee you will.) Both are referred to as being very sharp. The Tokina is faster, the Canon has a bigger range - but that 18-22mm range I've got covered by other lenses, so I didn't think I'd miss it. I was right.

It's excellent. The built quality is excellent - and it feels very good to handle, and has survived more drops than I should admit to with no damage - it's built like a tank. The IQ is excellent, it's a very sharp lens. Whilst the speed wasn't a deciding factor (I bought it for landscapes) I've found myself using it a lot for indoor portraits and the results have been surprisingly good.

I don't think you'll be unhappy with either the Canon or the Tokina but my vote is very firmly for the Tokina.

All of this, including the drops :getscoat:

Honestly, the build quality is a big step up from the consumer grade Nikkors I also have.

[Disastrous]

Love those wide shots mole.

Quite inspired actually, as I'm really not a fan of those identikit close-up-on-an-f1-car panning shots and it hadn't occurred to me how much more movement and drama a shot can have when the car plays such a small part in the frame.

Nice!

[RobDickinson]

Context, its a killer