C100: Wide angle opinions

B

BeeHop

Well-known member
Hi guys,

Ive got quite a stylised feature musical doc coming up with the view to be screened on the big screen.

Long story short - for the rehearsals and recordings I will be shooting 5 people in a small room.

For my C100/Ninja2 i have my 24 -105mm f4, 30mm f1.4 and 17 -50 f2.8 but i figure a nice wide angle would come in very handy for this small space.

So, i've narrowed my search:
Canon EF-S 10 - 22mm f3.5 - 4.5 or
Tokina 11 - 16 mm f.2.8

Both have good reviews. But I'm very interested in real world shooting with these lenses whilst shooting people as im not keen for that wide angle distortion look especially as i'll be filming people.

Thanks heaps in advance for any opinions :smile:
 
I have the Tokina 11-16 and it works pretty well. Not super sharp wide open but does better when you stop down. Plus, you get the fixed aperture that's faster than most other ultrawides. You're going to get distortion from all lenses in the ultra wide category, especially when you're up close. People on the edges will be even more stretched. Just back the camera up as much as you can. The 10-22 is a really nice lens but I prefer fixed aperture throughout the zoom range. The Sigma 10-20 f3.5 was another ultrawide I'd considered. It seemed pretty decent.
 
Last edited:
I have the Rokinon 14 T3.1 (f2.8 essentially) which I enjoy shooting with. here are 2 videos that I used the 14 entirely on:


In my daughters video i had the camera just hanging by my leg pointed in her direction.

GL with making your choice. I guess it would come down to how close you intend to get to your subjects. *thus me posting the 14 to give you an idea in that regard.

If you're stuck on the 2 you mentioned, sorry I couldn't be more help as I dont own those.
 
We recently picked up the Sigma 10-20mm 3.5 for our C100 and are very happy with it. It's also a hoot on the 5d, though it vignettes like crazy.
 
Cosimo,

The Sigma 10-20mm with that constant f3.5 is looks quite nice and the extra reach of 20mm will come in handy.

As the Canon is f3.5 - f4.5 the Sigma is looking like a goer. As the Tokina does better when you stop down its f2.8 becomes a non issue especially with the C100.

But I feel the deciding factor will be the one with the least distortion.

Only if I had a local camera store nearby where i could throw on all the lens choices :(
 
Another vote for the Tokina 11-16 (I also have the 17-55 and 24-105).

I love it.

Yes, f4 brings out the sharpness (good contrast, too). Okay, there is distortion as people get close to the edge of the screen, but really - it generates the sort of shots that required a £12K Fujinon wide on 2/3" cameras. I love the ability to do a Depth of Field trick on a wide shot.

Having said that, I'm considering the Samyang/Rokinon 14 too (to complete a set of primes), but the Tokina solves so many problems and creates great shots.
 
The Tokina 11-16 is an APS-C lens so you get the full advantages of a wide angle as opposed to to a cropped full frame lens. Hard to beat on a s35 sensor since they are basically the same size.
 
I have the Tokina 11-16 mainly used it on the AF100, love it but...make sure no stray light hits the front element or it will wash out. Presently needing to grade in some contrast in post on several shots where that happened. I do docs so I don't use a matte box, just sunshades, and I've learned the hard way don't let light hit the front element.
 
Ned makes a great point about the Tokina, which without doubt is otherwise a superb lens. I however bought a Canon 10-22mm several years ago for a 7D - and I just love it on my C100. Better range for run-n-gun than the Tokina.
 
BeeHop said:
But I feel the deciding factor will be the one with the least distortion.

Only if I had a local camera store nearby where i could throw on all the lens choices :(
Click to expand...


I have the Tokina and the Canon 17-35 2.8L (obviously a different range), love both, use the Tokina more.

I don't know where you are but at Lensrentals.com you could rent for 2 days the Tokina ($28) and the Sigma ($29) with $30 shipping, or $86 to test both lenses for 2 days.

And they have a Buy and Try on the Sigma good for $40 off if you buy at Superdigitalcity.

This page not only has that $40 off deal, but has brief reviews from Lensrental's owner on the Sigma 8-16, Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-22, Tamron 10-24, Tokina 11-16, and Tokina 12-24.

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/sigma-10-20mm-f3.5-ex-dc-hsm-for-canon

Comparing the ultra-wide, crop sensor camera lenses is an extremely difficult task, so I’ll put the summary first: they all deliver excellent image quality and you can’t go wrong with any of them. To my ‘just taking pictures’ assessment they are all excellent. There are some differences though, so I’ll try to point those out so you have a better chance at choosing the one that’s best for you.

The Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6 is the widest (and remember, 8mm is 20% wider than 10mm, so it’s a very real difference). Not quite as sharp in the corners as the others, and lower maximum aperture, but it’s really pretty good, especially considering it’s the widest of the wide.

The Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 is arguably the most flare resistant, the smallest and lightest when that’s important, and has low distortion. It’s also the most expensive and vignettes a bit. I like it a lot, though, and often find myself preferring it because of its small size.

The Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 has a bit more distortion than the others but delivers very nice images and is also built much better than the Canon 10-22. It does everything well and probably is the best value of the bunch.

The Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 Di II is the least expensive of the bunch and has the longest zoom range. It actually has less barrel distortion than most of the others, but a bit more chromatic aberration (purple fringing) and perhaps a bit more vignetting. But none of these are severe and the larger zoom range often comes in handy.

The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 Mk II (there are really no differences between them) gives you the widest aperture if you’ll be working in low light (with ultra wides, depth of field is rarely an important point), but it’s a bit soft at f/2.8, so the aperture advantage isn’t huge (I usually shoot it at f/4, if I can, to get it sharper). It has very little vignetting and distortion, probably the least of the group. Unfortunately, it does show quite a bit of chromatic aberration and is known to flare at times. But if you need f/2.8, this is your only choice, and it’s not a bad lens at all.

The Tokina 12-24 f/4 PRO DX II is built like a sturdy tank (and therefore a bit heavier). It does tend to give low contrast images when shot into the sun but is quite sharp otherwise. This is the one I’d take if conditions were rough: I pity the rock this bad boy falls on. Poor rock.

But like I said above: they’re all excellent. We hardly ever get anything but happy comments about any of them.
Click to expand...

Good info even if you don't rent/buy from them.



Good luck and happy lens shopping! (or... "buy them all", as Erik might say! :happy:)
 
Thanks for that groveChuck :)

I live in Adelaide South Australia so as a small city we are very limited by camera stores. I wish i could have a vast selection to hire out from but i'm limited, so I buy all my lenses online. It's now not such a small a decision as Ive just picked up another doco this time for broadcast TV.

I thought it was interesting the review said the Tamron 10 -24mm has less distortion than most as well as being less expensive. And as a doco maker that extra reach I know would come in handy.

I knew, rightly so, the Tokina 11 -16mm would be very popular and i've heard nothing but great things about it.

But for some reason (without even trying any of these) I'm leaning towards the Canon 10 - 22 mm.

Im currently overseas so I got a couple of weeks to decide so............I'll keep reading reading and reading :happy:

Cheers guys!!




 
I give +1 to 10-22mm from Canon

better quality overall. Maybe I am too subjective on the Canon opticals

I also own Samyang 14mm T3.1 Cine version. without pixel peeping, it looks acceptable if you mainly doing web sharing.

So freaking soft if you pixel peep it lol.

Since Im doing photography as a hobby (refresh my creativity from doing video stuff full time), I own mark iii, so I tend to avoid any APS-C lenses.

again if you arent on budget I really suggest you to buy the Zeiss Distagon 15mm.

if your budget is really tight, then go for 11-16 from Tokina

if your budget is ok, then you rather choose 10-22 from canon

again, If I have 2k for wide angle, Id rather add 1k more for that zeiss
 
Erik Naso said:
The f/3.5-4.5 variable on the Canon 10-22 is a deal breaker for me.

Tokina is 2.8 constant.
Click to expand...

yeah, But I find myself rarely uses 2.8-5.6 on wide angles, Focus is an issue, and soft is another issue.

Plus I dont do zooming on wide angles :P
 
what about the Tokina 12-24 ? seem like a bit more practical than 11-16 with a few more range....F/4 is ok with our sensitive cameras...

seems like a good companion to 24-105 !
 
I shot a wedding last night, and used my friends Canon 10-22 during the reception - very low light - After having my Zeiss 28mm (2.0) and Canon 70-200 (2.8) on all day, I agree with Erik that the 3.5-4.5 is a dealbreaker - as I found 10mm too wide (and fish-eye looking personally), I was using it on my glidecam around 16-20mm ish.. so f4 / f4.5 wasn't fast enough.
Would definitely have preferred the 11-16 @ 2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top