I want to start shooting landscapes and that is mainly what I'll be using it for, but I also need something for large group shots in tight places. It will be supplementing my 24-70 and 70-200.
Any feedback on this lens? Any issues with barrel distortion? Sharpness? Focus Speed? I read the reviews at B&H and they were all glowing, but I thought I would query this group as well.
The tok is a superb lens. I now own both the Canon 10-22 and the Tok and I think it's a toss up. The Canon is a bit wider, but the Tok is built like a tank. Any superwide like this is going to give distortions, but it's such a cool focal length, there's so much you can do with it. Essential!
It has been said that the only thing keeping the Canon 10-22 from being considered an "L" lens is the fact that it is made specifically for cropped sensors. Thus, the EF-S moniker. Folks have said that the glass is the same as "L" glass. I don't know the technical aspects of these comparisons, but I do know it takes very sharp photos.
I use this lens every day for my work and love it. It's very sharp and sturdy. Barrel distortion is minimal, but you *will* get converging verticals when shooting at it's widest (12mm)...an easy fix in PS.
I use this lens every day for my work and love it. It's very sharp and sturdy. Barrel distortion is minimal, but you *will* get converging verticals when shooting at it's widest (12mm)...an easy fix in PS.
Just to elaborate on this, "converging verticals" is NOT a function of something specific to the Tokina, just a fact of life. And anyway, all other things being equal converging verticals is LESS of a problem at 10-12mm than, say, at 17mm or 24mm. Why? Because you get convergence when you point the camera UP to include all of a building, and if the lens is wide enough you don't have to DO that to cover the building: you just end up with extra foreground you may want to crop out.
Hint: When you have coverage issues, use the lens at 10-12mm in VERTICAL orientation, place the building at the top of the frame, and then crop to square or horizontal later; it's effectively a "shift lens" when used this way, at the expense (of course) of some sensor area.
Hint: When you have coverage issues, use the lens at 10-12mm in VERTICAL orientation, place the building at the top of the frame, and then crop to square or horizontal later; it's effectively a "shift lens" when used this way, at the expense (of course) of some sensor area.
Great point!
And easy to forget about: to my brain at least, the term wide angle subconsciously suggests wide format.
Hint: When you have coverage issues, use the lens at 10-12mm in VERTICAL orientation, place the building at the top of the frame, and then crop to square or horizontal later; it's effectively a "shift lens" when used this way, at the expense (of course) of some sensor area.
Great point!
And easy to forget about: to my brain at least, the term wide angle subconsciously suggests wide format.
Right. But ultra-wide can be extraordinarily effective in vertical orientation in the landscape. The foreground shells in this image are about an inch in diameter:
There's nothing quite like ultra-wide for placing intimate, natural details in their much wider context.
Hint: When you have coverage issues, use the lens at 10-12mm in VERTICAL orientation, place the building at the top of the frame, and then crop to square or horizontal later; it's effectively a "shift lens" when used this way, at the expense (of course) of some sensor area.
Or use a lot of black space at the bottom of the said vertical composition. LOL! Like I did here (taken at 14mm):
