Wide Angle Lens for Canon Crop Camera

[Instinct]

Greetings, everyone. This is my first thread\post here. I've been receiving the newsletter for a while now, and have been mostly enjoying it.

Now, onward to my question\dilemma:

I have a Canon T1i with the 18-55 kit lens. I've always loved wide-angle photography and most of the my pics were shot at 18mm, so I've come to terms with the fact that I'll have to spend a small fortune (500$, at the very least) on a wide angle\ultra wide angle lens for my new camera.

Now, out of the major players, two stand out:

1) The Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX
2) The Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM

Both have exceptional and equivalent sharpness, good colours, contrast and relatively low distortion (except Sigma at 8mm, but that's unavoidable). They're both nearly the same price, too.

Tokina's advantages over the Sigma:
1) It has less distortion and vignetting.
2) It can take filters.
3) It can be used on full-frame cameras towards the end of the zoom (14-16mm).
4) It's a constant 2.8 aperture lens.

Sigma's advantages of the Tokina:
1) It's wider.
2) It has less chromatic aberrations.

I really hate chromatic aberrations, and I've found that they always stay, even a little bit, despite my very best efforts. Can they truly be defeated and leave no trace on an inflicted photograph? -- That's one up for the Sigma, it has less CA.

I fancy the idea of someday going full-frame, or perhaps selling my lenses for FF-possessing pros. -- One up for Tokina.

I love indoor, low-light photography, and none of these lenses have image stabilisation (naturally), so I need a nice, big light-hatch. -- One-up for Tokina.

I also love going wide, really wide, but don't want it to look too distorted - I want a clean, realistic picture if possible, not a fish-eyed gimmick photo. -- One up for Tokina?

Now, you can understand why I'm in a rut, 'ere. How important are these highlighted factors are, in your opinion?
Is 11mm wide enough, and is 8mm too wide?
Would the high CA in the Tokina bother me, or is it totally curable?
Is investing 700$ in an APS-C-only lens a stupid move for a poor, non-pro photographer?
Would I miss the 2.8F of the Tokina, and would the slowness of the Sigma bother me much?

Thanks in advance.

[sk66]

I used to have the Sigma 10-20mm (w/D300) and I thought it was great. I would not consider loosing have of the range of a lens making it DX compatible.... If that's the thinking they are ALL DX compatible (even the 8-16).
Chromatic aberrations suck and are seldom 100% fixable IME.
"Slowness" is relative, you really don't need a "fast" WA lens...it doesn't take much shutter speed to make a 10mm hand-holdable.
Spending $700+ on a WA is questionable either way IMO...it's the least used lens in my kit. (I now have a D3 and 12-24mm) But there is the very rare occasion where I find it invaluable.
(If you are thinking of future upgrade to FF consider the Sigma 12-24mm. I bought mine used for "cheap".)

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Instinct

Is 11mm wide enough, and is 8mm too wide?
Would the high CA in the Tokina bother me, or is it totally curable?
Is investing 700$ in an APS-C-only lens a stupid move for a poor, non-pro photographer?
Would I miss the 2.8F of the Tokina, and would the slowness of the Sigma bother me much?

I've never found a need for wider than 10mm (on my 10-24). That being said, you might.

CA is never totally curable, and is harder to get rid of in faster lenses. That being said, depending on your workflow, it cna be rendered invisible.

When do you plan on going full-frame, assuming you do so? I see no point as a non-pro to go FF, as I can get everything I need from a crop-sensor camera. As such, I see no problem spending the money where it's needed. That being said, neither of these lenses truly is FF, and while the Tokina can be used on FF, I'd advise against it.

Whether you'd miss the f/2.8 or not is entirely up to what you plan on shooting. Of course, at that focal length, you can usually steadily handhold down to about 1/15, so the slowness might not be an issue. Also, if you're planning on doing architecture or landscape work, you'll likely A) be on a tripod and B) be using smaller apertures (f/8-f/16) anyways

I dont see the point of the 8-16: it's just too wide for my tastes. Its not a fisheye, but its getting close. There's also only the one review for the 8-16 so far (that i've seen), and i'd be leery of buying into it just yet.

[inkista]

The speed of the Tokina is its main advantage/difference over the other lenses. As Os says, while you can use it on full frame, you are stuck at the long end of the lens, otherwise you'll have a ton of vignetting. OTOH, given how short the zoom range is, most people tend to treat it more like a prime than a zoom.

For me, while CA is a PITA, it is fixable to a degree in post, and I'd rather go for something that's sharper and has a flatter field of view, as I'm already carrying around the Sigma 8mm circular fisheye in my bag. To me, the main attraction of the Tokina is the f/2.8 throughout the range. None of the other ultrawides do that, and I do tend to use a fisheye indoors and at night, and have often found myself cursing a max. aperture of f/3.5 as not quite enough. However, the 11-16 is also going to be larger than most of the other ultrawides. It takes a 77mm filter, iirc. The 8-16, btw, can't use filters at all. Since I tend to like doing WA shots with an ND, that would definitely take the 8-16 off my list.

In practical terms, I will say that the biggest drawback to the Tokina is that you simply can't find it in Canon mount anywhere for anything close to the $600 MSRP online. B&H, Adorama, and all the usual suspects have been out of stock for months. And on Amazon, someone's doing the scalper's thing and trying to get $900 out of you for it.

[Instinct]

Thanks for the responses everyone. I'd still like some more feedback\insight, especially from people with experience with both\one of these lenses.

On the full-frame thing - I, myself, do not intend to go FF just yet, it's too expensive. I might, however, wish to someday sell this lens (as lenses, especially of this grade, lose little value), and I might want to cater to the professional\serious enthusiast crowd. I could sell the Tokina as a 16mm 2.8F prime, which is no small thing.

I'm leaning towards the Tokina, though I'll certainly wait for more reviews on the Sigma. 11mm is really quite wide, and I've seen pictures taken at 8-10mm, and they don't look... natural. 11-12mm looks like something humans are used to see - a broad, wide view of the world, with no distortions (we've got the best processor on Earth, after all). Am I wrong in thinking this?

I am really worried about the bloody chromatic aberrations, they are the bane of my photographs with my Canon kit lens (seeing as it's quite sharp and has IS). I've never been able to truly get rid of them... any advice on that? Is it a deal breaker?

On the Tokina being mostly absent from stores - I know, it sucks, but I've seen it pop from time to time on eBay for 600-650$. I will certainly not pay a premium for it. The Sigma is 700$ as it is, without a premium, so it's basically the same anyway.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Instinct

I am really worried about the bloody chromatic aberrations, they are the bane of my photographs with my Canon kit lens (seeing as it's quite sharp and has IS). I've never been able to truly get rid of them... any advice on that? Is it a deal breaker.

Different people have different tolerance for this kind of thing. I ended up selling my $600 Sigma 8mm f/4 fisheye to get the $650 Sigma 8mm f/3.5 fisheye just to cut down on the amount of lateral CA the lens was throwing out.

The thing to me is, if it's lateral CA [where you different color shadows on either side of the image either blue-cyan/red or purple-blue/yellow], it should be easily corrected--it's just a pain to have to do it all the time for that lens--but every ultrawide exhibits this--even the 16-35L--it's the nature of wide angle glass.

What software are you using? I've generally found that the lateral CA correction in Lightroom does pretty much what I want it to do on nearly all my lenses--the fisheye being the sole exception. At that point, I have to go to something more sophisticated for this kind of correctiong, like PTLens.

HOWEVER. Many people mean many different things by CA. If you're talking about the purple/blue fringe or red blooming effect, that's as much to do with the sensor as with the lens, and the only ways to really correct for them are to change your shooting technique to avoid backlighting or blowing highlights, and/or to desaturate the specific bloom color.

If you mean longitudinal/transverse CA (i.e., out-of-focus CA), you're mostly SOL.

[Instinct]

The thing to me is, if it's lateral CA [where you different color shadows on either side of the image either blue-cyan/red or purple-blue/yellow], it should be easily corrected--it's just a pain to have to do it all the time for that lens--but every ultrawide exhibits this--even the 16-35L--it's the nature of wide angle glass.

It doesn't happen with all pictures, though. I don't mind getting an otherwise better lens, and spending 2-3 minutes per image correcting that stuff. I'm not a pro, so my time spent with my photography is my own. Question is, is it treatable, or will that horrible purple fringing stay? I've found that even if the software treats the colourful borders, it does not rid the rest of the object from the purple 'tinge', especially when it's narrow objects, like tree branches or electricity lines. Those, against harsh light (mostly bright sky) will end up looking like cotton candy... :-\

The Tokina has lateral CA, 1.6 pixels wide. Is that too bad, or workable?

The Sigma has less CA, but much more vignetting. Is vignetting a fully treatable problem?

If you mean longitudinal/transverse CA (i.e., out-of-focus CA), you're mostly SOL.

Do you mean 'bokeh CA'? Also, what's 'SOL' in this context?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Instinct

.... will that horrible purple fringing stay? I've found that even if the software treats the colourful borders, it does not rid the rest of the object from the purple 'tinge', especially when it's narrow objects, like tree branches or electricity lines. Those, against harsh light (mostly bright sky) will end up looking like cotton candy... :-\

As I said, avoid shoot up against harsh light and blowing highlights, and the problem won't be as bad. Also, avoid shooting wide open with fast lenses in bright sunshine.

The only post-processing technique I know of that generally removes it is to desaturate the purple.

The Tokina has lateral CA, 1.6 pixels wide. Is that too bad, or workable?

Personal preference. To me, it's workable, but to someone else it might not be.

The Sigma has less CA, but much more vignetting. Is vignetting a fully treatable problem?

Same deal. Personal preference. But most software will lighten up the corners. Again, vignetting is par for the course with ultrawides.

Do you mean 'bokeh CA'?

Yes. Same thing. The colors are separating front-to-back, rather than side to side as with lateral CA.

Also, what's 'SOL' in this context?

The polite form is "sadly out of luck".

[Instinct]

As I said, avoid shoot up against harsh light and blowing highlights, and the problem won't be as bad.

It's often just some objects against harsh light, and not the entire picture. The sun coming through the leaves, the bright sky against buildings\trees, etc. I live in a very, very sunny place, so it's unavoidable, unless you shoot at night.

Also, avoid shooting wide open with fast lenses in bright sunshine.

That's almost never the case. In bright light, the lens closes down to 8-11.

Personal preference. To me, it's workable, but to someone else it might not be.

I've come to realise I really do hate it, and it requires tons of tinkering to get it out... and those 'stains' stay still, despite my best efforts. This may be a deal breaker.

Same deal. Personal preference. But most software will lighten up the corners. Again, vignetting is par for the course with ultrawides.

Yes, I've seen how it works - it creates the tiniest bit of noise in the corners, and not even that, most of the time. Certainly better to work with than CA.

The polite form is "sadly out of luck".

I wonder what the impolite term is.

Anyway, thank you very much. I'll await more reviews on the Sigma, before I decide.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Instinct

It's often just some objects against harsh light, and not the entire picture. The sun coming through the leaves, the bright sky against buildings\trees, etc. I live in a very, very sunny place, so it's unavoidable, unless you shoot at night.

Or with the sun at your back. Living in San Diego, I know what you mean about harsh sunlight. But the point here is to watch your histogram and the blinkies and make sure you're not blowing your highlights.