Which UWA?

[ishootRAW]

I've done my research, just wondering what your opinions are.

I do landscapes mostly, and 17mm just isn't seaming wide enough. Also keep in mind I'm 14, I get my photo money from mowing lawns, and I'm also saving for the 17-55. Here's my curent thoughts.

Sigma 10-20 4-5.6: pros: cheap, sharp, good on the CA. Cons: flares like hell, slow.

Sigma 10-20 3.5: pros: a bit faster, constent aperture (I shoot in manual). Cons: $100 more, many copy's soft on the left side,

Tokina 11-16 2.8: pros: FAST, very good build quality(I am a outdoors guy). Cons: really expensive, not quite as wide.

Canon 10-22 3.5-4.5: pros: its, well a canon, just really good all around(it's been called the EF-s L along with the 17-55 2.8. Cons: the most expensive.

Tamron, I've heard it's crap, so I'm going to forget it.

I'm going to death valley in 3 months so I'd like to have it by then.

Yah, I go around here telling everyone that lenses are an investment. But I'm not sure I'm willing to throw down $800 for the Canon or Tokina.

I do have a $400 best buy gift card coming(for of all things selling the most Boy Scout popcorn in Silicon valley), but I'm not sure how much I want to go out of pocket.

What do you idio.. I mean nice people think?
Thanx

[BuddhaPi]

I would consider renting the canon, then saving to purchase it if you love it..like you said it's an investment..

just thoughts from a nice per...um idiot

[DelCan]

I have the Canon and I really enjoy it. I bought it used for $599.

[ishootRAW]

OK, assuming I willing to stuff it and and be happy in the long run, Canon or Tokina? How much am I going to notice the 10-11mm?

The Tokina sounds good because of the insane sharpness(especially in the corners - great for landscapes.) and the build quality which is apparently on par with Ls (My stuff gets thrown in backpacks for 10days etc, build means allot too me.). The zoom ring is in the back, and the thing does not have the "hollow" sound that EF-s's have. although I do mostly landscapes, the 2.8 for when I do architecture (and sunsets, etc) would be nice.

BUT, the Canon has that extra mm(I don't care about the long end.), handles flare better, and is well, a Canon.

To those with Tokinas, is the build really that good? Do you wish you had the extra mm?

To those with the Canon. Does it have that crappy feeling that other EF-s's have? How sharp do you find it? Especially in the corners.

[Nicole]

I'll throw in my 2 cents on the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 because I have it and I love it. Ummm, yeah, I love it. I find that I'm never really shooting wide open anyway because I'm doing landscapes, so I'm more often shooting at around f/8. I've had very good luck with it, it's as sharp as I'd expect it to be. In any case, these are mine using the Sigma: Flickr: -Nicole-'s stuff tagged with sigma1020mmf4056

I should also say, in the case of sunsets, normally I'm using 1-3 filters on the lens, so that extends my exposures well into the "needs a tripod" category.

[ravncat]

Add weird mustache distortion to the sigmas at the wide end, and not so great CA handling on the tokina 11-16. Fyi , the tokina 11-16 sweetspot hs 0 distortion and sharpest and is most awesome at 14mm.