My Circle of Confusion

[Phoenix_Jackson]

Warning: Long read. Please bear with me.
Foreword: This thread might seem familiar and that's because I posted it on another site. But I'm getting response a bit far from the questions related (which usually happens on most forums anyway). So here's my attempt to get more informative answers.

Hello, kind people of DPS. I need help on getting rid of adding more confusion to my "buy" list. I am a total beginner and currently own a Canon EOS 60D.

Being a fan of city scapes and night shots, I am currently investing for a wide/ultrawide lens. My widest is the 18-55mm kit lens which I think you'd all agree that there just are times when it's not wide enough. So I decided to make my first investment of a lens.
Initially, I marked Canon's 10-22mm for some time. I checked a lot of reviews and comparisons to similar range and brands and I have settled for this particular lens. But then in the market (in my country), there's but a small difference in price when it comes to Sigma's 8-16mm and the rest of 10-22/20mm. This started my problem. The unending debate between third-party or Canon (since Canon is my camera).

But recently, I've been practicing myself on using the nifty-fifty (because I always end up using the kit lens... which I think is lazy). In time, I got used to it and liking it very much, which made me consider whatever's the widest prime lens is out there. I started with Canon's 14mm. The price would not have bothered me if I didn't initially invested for those ultra-wide zoom lenses mentioned above. The quality of L lenses may be unquestionable but I still peeked at alternatives. Samyang Optics's 14mm came to me and I'm very tempted to support it, due to it made in my country.

Then again, something haunted me. The "You get what you pay for" that seemed to be the motto for photography (annoying as it is repeatedly mentioned in almost all photography situations). This lead me back to Canon's 14mm L lens. Yet still not really decided; the pros and cons between the aforementioned ultra-wide zoom lenses and these primes.

Then again, I thought, if I'm to spend that much for an L lens, I might as well go for Carl Zeiss's 18mm Distagon. Or even the 21mm. The prices are a bit close to each other. Ken Rockwell*** got me pretty much convinced on either of these 2, maybe more on the 21mm (I'm not a follower, I just stumbled upon his blogs/reviews when I searched for those lens's reviews). But then I noticed that I'm coming back full circle to 18mm! I thought, "Perhaps if I finally decide on 18mm Distagon, sticking to my kit lens is a good way to master its usage." But c'mon! Yearning for wider is the reason why I started the search for other lenses in the first place!

I know that it's really up to the photographer and not much with the tools. But I'm talking investment and expanding my (limited) abilities here. To me, being a beginner, there are two possible future which I could end up with:
Either I get to improve and continue this hobby with the possibilities of going pro, which in time, will also upgrade to FF. In turn, I'd still fully enjoy my early investments. That, along with (of course) owning such items (undeniable ego stroke).
or
I end up quitting. But with such quality lenses, it wouldn't be much of a loss when passing them to another aspirant... be it sold or given.

For now, I fed my piggy bank well enough for those ultra-wide zoom lenses. Should I go for those, it'll be a debate on whether the Sigma or Canon. But if the primes are the way to go, I can still wait and keep feeding my piggy until that time comes. But then which one?

So may I ask, kind people of DPS: Have you ever gone through such a pandemonium? Can you please guide me on how to deal with this confusion?
Thank you very much for taking your time on this and I apologize for being too wordy.

*** I realized how a lot of people here feels about him. So let me say again, "I'm not a follower, I just stumbled upon his blogs/reviews when I searched for those lens's reviews."

[inkista]

You're gonna hate me.

Go for the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.

Here are my reasons.

Unless you're really experienced with ultrawide lenses, a prime may cause you more problems that you're going to be aware of. Unlike the middle focal lengths, when you get down into the ultrawide angles, a single mm can make a HUGE difference in framing, and with landscapes, you can't always scramble 100 feet forward or back to get the framing you want. With the longer focal lengths and closer subjects, it's only a step or two, but with landscape shooting, the ability to zoom gets a bit more important.

The only time you can get a good-quality lower-cost ultrawide zoom lens is when you shoot a crop body. Once you go to full-frame, you're going to have to buy a full-frame capable ultrawide, and as you've seen, they ain't cheap. And getting one that's f/2.8, which can be used indoors as well for available light shooting, is going to get really expensive (EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM II).

The Tokina 11-16 has been wowing people for a while now. The 10-22 is a great lens, but it's slower, and (to my eye), exhibits an annoying amount of lateral C/A (as in, I could see it on web-sized images with the naked eye). While you can, of course, correct for this easily in post, it just annoyed me. YMMV.

The thing is, if you purchase "wide angle" glass that's full-frame capable, it won't really be ultrawide on your crop body any more. Time enough to worry about full-frame capability when you HAVE a full-frame body. You can sell your EF-S ultrawide, and if it's a good one, it won't have lost much value. And that can help fund the ultrawide choice you've made for full-frame. Also, it can take screw-on filters. Dunno about you, but when I'm landscape shooting, I tend to use a CLP and an ND (and even the occasional IR) filter.

Between the Zeiss 18 and the Zeiss 21, the 18 is only f/4, and its corner performance is nothing to write home about. It's ok. The 21 is a freaking legend. If you're going to get one, get the 21. Rockwell... isn't exactly neutral (or average) in his views. Find a few other opinions as well, before following his advice. He's something of an eccentric, and his viewpoint doesn't always hold true for a non-eccentric shooter. Also, Zeiss lenses are manual focus.

The Samyang's really sharp, a super bargain, but exhibits wave distortion severe enough to require software correction for certain subjects, and specialized software at that, as it's a combination of pincushion and barrel distortion. It cannot take screw-on filters. Also manual focus.

The Canon 14L is great, but is big, heavy, expensive, and cannot take screw-on filters. And for the price, you could also be looking at the TS-E 17, and TS-E 24 II. But, of course, both of those won't be ultrawide on a crop body.

Just my opinions.

[Phoenix_Jackson]

OMG! Those are some of the best advises I've received in my whole (short) photography life! Thank you so much for clarifying everything that I'm confused about. You even touched the reason why in the beginning, I always ended up using 18-55mm kit lens, out of frustration with the 50mm; one could only move so much in so little time-- just for framing.

And thank you for giving me peace-of-mind when it came to investing. It only goes to show what pros keep repeating is right: Stick to what you have, and in this case, a crop body. I only thought about lenses with that saying. So yes, I'll focus more on my current body instead of worrying the "possibility" of FF. Only time will tell when I get back on that.

It's the Tokina recommendation that kinda raised my brow. So far, this is the second time it's been recommended despite the others with more range. I have read but a few reviews about this lens, and there were good ones and bad ones. The best review, so far that I've read, was this one which includes actual testing and illustrations. Pretty much resulted against the Tokina lens. And it's one reason why I scratched it off my list (the most expensive out of the 5 is another). Its wide aperture is what truly trumps the rest, though. But like you said, I realized now that it's unfair to judge it with just one illustration. At least, right now (and hope it isn't bought already), someone's selling a used Tokina 11-16mm lens. I think this is my chance to really test it out personally.

Once again, thank you so so much for enlightening me on this one. It completely solved all the questions I asked.

... and I won't mention his name every again.

[inkista]

The Tokina 11-16, for me, is a matter of personal usage and preferences. I have an 8mm circular fisheye. I use it indoors as often as I use it outside, so I'd really want an f/2.8 ultrawide if I got one. All of the ultrawides are pretty much the same quality, but the Tokina is the only one that's f/2.8. Wider lenses are typically going to be softer wide open than lenses with smaller max. aperture. If you know you're going to be using an ultrawide outside all the time for landscapes, then the 10-22 might be a better choice for you.

My problem is that I was all set to pull the trigger on the Tokina....and then I bought the 5Dii. Now I have to rethink it all over again. Obviously, the ideal lens to get here is the EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM II. But it's $1800. The Tokina 16-28/2.8 (the full-frame version of the 11-16) doesn't take screw-on filters. And if I can ditch the longing to use an ultrawide indoors and only use one for landscape shooting, then I could probably get by with the much-less expensive EF 17-40 f/4L USM.

There's also the used 16-35 Mark I, and its predecessor, the EF 17-35 f/2.8L USM, but I can't find them anywhere for sale. Some days, I think I should just get the Samyang and see what comes along, but so far, I'm not seeing what I want. So, I might just get an 11-16 and pop it on my 50D, and use it at 16mm on the 5D.

And Ken Rockwell has a lot of good information, too. You just need to check that he's not pulling a funny. His sense of humor occasionally leads him into making outrageous statements that can get you into trouble if you believe everything he says is factually true. And, unfortunately, he's less than clear about the times he's doing this, particularly to inexperienced shooters and those for whom English is not their first language.

[Phoenix_Jackson]

I still have to give the Tokina a try. I'm skeptical but because of my initial impression. But I'd rather be safe than sorry. Being a beginner, I put much focus on one field first which is night-shots outdoors (it's what caught my interest the most). So that is a factor I'm basing my choice of. But I should not dismiss Tokina's wide aperture, since I haven't even tried indoors yet.

I think with this, I should hold back on purchasing at least for a month (again), and start low-light indoor photography, before finally deciding which of the two lenses (Canon vs Tokina) should I buy. The thing is, as of today, Canon is $150 cheaper than Tokina (roughly estimated). And although the price isn't significantly far apart (unlike Samyang vs Carl Zeiss), how it serves is another thing. So yeah, thank you for reminding me of this.

I still won't speak his name ever nor check his site. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

[JFSanders]

I have Tokina's AT-X 100mm 2.8 and I do love this lens. I suspect that you won't be disappointed by Inkista's recommendation.

Jim