Which wide angle zoom for a Canon 450D?

[Kermit power]

I'm looking for a nice wide angle lens, and at the moment am considering the following:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm The most expensive of the lot at £505, and I've heard some mixed reports. Is it worth the extra?

Tokina 11-16mm Higher end of the price range at £430 or so, but every review I've read reckons it's excellent, and I like the f2.8. Relatively short zoom range though.

Sigma 12-24mm More or less the same price as the Tokina 11-16. Don't know anyone who has one, but reviews on Fred Miranda and the like seem good.

Tokina 12-24mm Not much more than the Sigma 10-20 at £320, and again seems to be pretty well rated.

Sigma 10-20mm Cheapest of the lot at £300, and I've heard some good things about it, but I've also seen a number of people on Fred Miranda suggesting that quality can be very variable from one lens to the next.


Problem is, I have no idea how to choose between them all! I'm not really inclined towards the Canon, as it's a good bit more expensive, and I've heard those mixed reports, but other than that, how would you lot choose?

ETA - I'm also not completely convinced by the zoom range of the Tokina 11-16mm. If I took that, I reckon I'd still want to carry the 18-55 kit lens around with me, as it would leave quite a big gap before my 28-75 kicks in.

Edited by Kermit power on Saturday 24th January 23:33

[VxDuncan]

You won't really be able to tell the difference between that lot. Get the cheap sigma.

Putting the money saved toward a 40D will make far more of a difference to your wide shots than the canon lens on a 450D.

[SamHH]

Based on no experience whatsoever of any of them, I'd go for the Tokina 11-16. Like you, the reports I've read say the image quality is good and although it's probably not the type of lens that I'd really want to be fast, the fact that it's the only 1:2.8 lens appeals. I don't think that small zoom range would be an issue either; most people say that they usually use ultra-wide zooms at the widest setting most of the time and I think I would too.

[Kermit power]

VxDuncan said:

You won't really be able to tell the difference between that lot. Get the cheap sigma.

Putting the money saved toward a 40D will make far more of a difference to your wide shots than the canon lens on a 450D.

Only problem with that is I deliberately went for the 450D rather than the 40D in the first place, because the 40D was just too big and clunky, and wouldn't fit in carry on luggage.

[VxDuncan]

...in that case you want to be looking at the size / weight of the different lens options. Don't know about the canons, but there's a big difference between a wide nikon zoom and the sigma 10-20!

[SamHH]

VxDuncan said:

You won't really be able to tell the difference between that lot. Get the cheap sigma.

Putting the money saved toward a 40D will make far more of a difference to your wide shots than the canon lens on a 450D.

Really? I was under the impression that the lens has a far greater bearing on image quality than the camera.

[Kermit power]

SamHH said:

VxDuncan said:

You won't really be able to tell the difference between that lot. Get the cheap sigma.

Putting the money saved toward a 40D will make far more of a difference to your wide shots than the canon lens on a 450D.

Really? I was under the impression that the lens has a far greater bearing on image quality than the camera.

As did I, especially when there's so little difference between the 40D and 450D in that respect if you don't need the much faster burst rate of the 40D.

[Scott328i]

Another here considering the 450d is much the same as a 40d.

I have heard alot of good things regarding the sigma 10-20mm

I will be waiting a couple of week to order mine though. Only because I don't fancy breaking my bank just yet.

[Kermit power]

VxDuncan said:

...in that case you want to be looking at the size / weight of the different lens options. Don't know about the canons, but there's a big difference between a wide nikon zoom and the sigma 10-20!

Canon = 83.5 x 89.8mm, 385g

Tokina 11-16 = 84 x 89, 560g.

Tokina 12-24 = 84 x 89.5, 570g

Sigma 10-20 = 83.8 x 81.3, 470g

Sigma 12-24 = 99.06 x 86.4, 600g


So the dimensions of the Tokinas and the Canon are basically identical. I'm surprised that the Canon is so much lighter than the Tokinas, working on the assumption that as a rule, weight and quality seem to go hand in hand with lenses?

The Sigma 10-20 is a little smaller, but still in the same sort of region, and again heavier than the Canon.

The Sigma 12-24 is significantly longer and heavier, and there are far more reports of variable quality from lens to lens on that than there are on the Tokina of the same focal length, so I think I'll knock that one out of the running.

Advice still welcome on the Canon, the Tokinas and the Sigma 10-20.

Also, why do Sigma have both a 10-20 and a 12-24? There is obviously more to it than the focal lengths, seeing as they're so similar, but what?

[SamHH]

The 10-20mm only fits on small sensor cameras (i.e. not the 1D, 1Ds D3 etc.)

[Kermit power]

SamHH said:

The 10-20mm only fits on small sensor cameras (i.e. not the 1D, 1Ds D3 etc.)

I'm pretty sure that's the case for all of them? Certainly the Canon is an EF-S, and the Tokinas are for APS-C sensors. I can't really imagine I'm going to get to the point of being able to justify the expense of a full frame body in the near to medium term, though, so I'm not sure that's too much of an issue. They should all work on the 50D and whatever the successors to the 45oD will be, should I decide to go that way.

There also doesn't seem to be much in the way of wide angle zooms of this sort of length which do support full frame sensors.

[SamHH]

Kermit power said:

SamHH said:

The 10-20mm only fits on small sensor cameras (i.e. not the 1D, 1Ds D3 etc.)

I'm pretty sure that's the case for all of them?

I was replying to your question about the difference between the two Sigmas. The 10-20 only fits on small sensor cameras, the 12-24 fits on all sensor sizes.

[Kermit power]

SamHH said:

Kermit power said:

SamHH said:

The 10-20mm only fits on small sensor cameras (i.e. not the 1D, 1Ds D3 etc.)

I'm pretty sure that's the case for all of them?

I was replying to your question about the difference between the two Sigmas. The 10-20 only fits on small sensor cameras, the 12-24 fits on all sensor sizes.

Ah... Thanks!

[sidaorb]

If you posted this question on EPZ you would be inudated with the same answer Sigma 10-20mm, an extremely popular lens, although as already stated only any good on a 1.6x crop

[Simpo Two]

Kermit power said:

There also doesn't seem to be much in the way of wide angle zooms of this sort of length which do support full frame sensors.

On a FF sensor the focal length doesn't have to be so short for the same field of view. Assuming a 1.5 crop (ie Nikon DX) then a 10-20mm on a DX camera gives the same field of view as a 15-30mm lens on a FF camera. And voila, there's a Sigma 15-30mm

[red355]

I've got one non-Canon lens the sigma 12-24 its surprising good, certainly gives the 16-35F2.8L a run for its money.

Well worth the 250 quid I paid mint used

[RobDickinson]

I have the sigma 10-20 , an early one, a friend has a later one, there both excelent lens's.


IMO 10mm is a whole lot different to 12mm, though the sigma 10-20 is more like 10.9 than 10.0.

The 12-24 is an excelent lens if you get a good one and are thinking of moving to a full frame camera.

At 'usual' landscape apertures (f8-f11) you wont notice quality difference between them all unless you realy pixel peep like mad, even then its doubtfull.

And how often will you use f2.8 on an UWA? I hardly ever shoot my 10-20 wide open, but with 24cm close focus you can get shallow DOF if you try (and want).