UKC

After many years abuse I have finally more or less killed my 10-24mm lens. The camera fails to recognise it above about 16mm now; think a slight jarring when jumping off a wall may have finally knocked something out of alignment.

In 7 years of use it has rolled a fair distance down a hillside; saved my camera body twice by taking the impact onto concrete when tripods have fallen over and often been soaked in the call of duty. Apart from superglue repairs to the lens hood and a new filter recently it was a very robust lens and managed to capture the odd good photo. I have tried cleaning the connections, but to no avail.

A wide angle lens is probably the one I use the most, mainly for long exposure shots in low light environments, the other use is landscape shots with a Lee Big Stopper filter. Majority of images taken on a tripod, manual focus and above f5.6.

Can anyone recommend a suitable replacement, especially interested in people who have owned a couple of wide angle lenses and can give a comparison. I could just get another Tamron, but possibly prefer something a little sharper. So far I have read reviews on the following lenses.

Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD - What I had used.
Canon EF-S 10-18 mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM - Cheap but slow also high vignetting.
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM Lens - Seems better quality than the Tamron?
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM - Comparable to the above Canon.
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM - Like the idea of the 8mm, but Lee Filters don't seem to make a 75mm adaptor ring!
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X - Good reviews and low f-stop makes it good for handheld in low light conditions.

Any reviews or advice pros/cons are welcome.

Cheers.

In reply to craig h:

You'll get lots of replies I suspect as this was a v popular subject a few years ago (do a thread search?).

I have owned the Tamron and the Canon 10-22. I don't know if I had the proverbial 'bad copy' of the Tamron but I didn't get on too well with it. V bad vignetting and edge softness in anything but perfect light. I found the canon delivered much better picture quality and easier to use. I was pretty happy with it although there was some softness at the edges even in good conditions. Used with a 60D.

A lot of people seemed to rate the Tokina but I never managed to try one.

Since going full frame I use the canon 17-40 which is a lovely lens but I assume you're using a crop body.

In reply to craig h:

i will watch this thread also as i have a 60d and want a wide angle lens,id even get a manual focus as it wont be used for anything that needs auto quick focus

In reply to mark s:
I always got on well with the Canon 10-22 when I was using a 20d. It's as good as the 24-105L stopped down to f8 and smaller. I may even consider parting with it, as it's a bit redundant now I'm working from a TSE24 for wide-ish landscapes.

In reply to craig h:

I have the Sigma 10-20mm but havent used any others.
Nice lens although from reviews the QC was variable in the past.

In reply to craig h:

i got the sigma 8-16mm and love it.
In good light it is very sharp but you will not get filters on there even if you have the right size unless you want your pictures to look like this
(dad thought he had taken lens cap off but only the front cover)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83246699@N00/13908559078/in/album-72157643711...

It got curved front element like a fish eye.

In reply to craig h:

got a canon 10-22 and love it, tends to be on my camera more than anything else, slight distortion but barley noticeable at 10mm otherwise faultless. they seem to have come down in price slightly now (second hand) so would defiantly be worth a look.

hope that helps some what

Max

In reply to HarmM:

I too have the EF-S 10-22; spends more time on the camera than the rest of the lens collection put together!

I can't say I've spent much more time than a quick play in the shop with any others but the Canon offering was for me the nicest to use.

A symptom of modern photography is that you can get really bogged down fretting over barrel distortion, chromatic aberration etc. but to be honest we probably aren't going to notice most of the time. The "distortion" caused by it being 10mm is much more noticeable.

Not a dig, just a comment from experience - I gave myself a good talking too once I realised I was spending more time pixel-peeping than actually using the kit.

For me, handling is probably the deciding factor (oh, and budget) assuming that the optics aren't awful (which is unlikely these days)! Go with what feels good.

Rob.

In reply to Jon Read:

just looked at the 10-22 and it looks right for what i want.

In reply to Robert Lavin:

I think a symptom of modern photography is that you just can't go into a shop and have a play with a lens or camera to see what feels good these days. The number of independent shops are few and far between and due to the cost of just having things sat on the shelf; often the choice is limited. The few chain stores you can just pop into often offer a worse selection.

I tend to do a bit of research these days, even though the lenses probably do much the same. If I'm spending a few £'s on something I hope to enjoy for a few years I'd like to hear what people think.

The Canon 10-22mm is what I'll probably get, even though folk from another forum strongly recommend the Tokina 11-16mm, just need to enter the credit card details now

In reply to craig h:

I've never thought of it like that. I suppose that I've been fairly lucky and have had a selection of reasonable camera shops nearby for years, or at least when I've been spending.

I still miss the days when you'd get a print back and think "Nice photo". Now we zoom right in and check for sharpness and all the "imperfections" that digital photography introduces. I'm as guilty of it as the next person.

Anyway, I digress.

Enjoy your lens, plenty of opportunity to get creative / dramatic with it at the wide end.

Rob.

In reply to Robert Lavin:

Thanks Rob, the Canon has been ordered.

Will happily give some feedback as to whether it was worth the extra money over my trusty Tamron, plus a lens hood for the Canon doesn't come as standard so that was an extra £35.

I'll make the most of the wide end as the majority of the time it's what I use it for in my culverts, mines and derelict buildings. It's the same diameter as the Tamron so recent UV filter and my Lee adaptor ring will fit on nicely. Perfection is good, but sometimes not as great as a memorable photo with all the imperfections just because you were there.

In reply to mark s:

Let's chat....!