I own a Canon EOS 7D SLR Digital Camera with 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens. I am looking for a wider angle lens with the hope of getting the best still & video I can for lets say under $850. Here are two options I am considering. Please give feedback if you know pros/cons. BTW, If you think there are better options, feel free to add them to the discussion:

1.Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens: I have read this lens has jagged edges when videoing. That is a concern if true & holding me back from buying it. If someone has this lens on a 7D & has videoed with it, please confirm or deny this is an issue.

2. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX Digital Zoom Lens (for Canon EOS Cameras)

#2. It works great, its sharp, its bright. And I also use it on my full frame 5D at 15-16mm.

I have read this lens has jagged edges when videoing. That is a concern if true & holding me back from buying it. If someone has this lens on a 7D & has videoed with it, please confirm or deny this is an issue

I have that lens, not sure what they are referring to, do you have an example showing these jagged edges? I have not noticed that in my shots.

Noa, I know I read it but cannot find the comment at the moment. It is past midnight so I am going to call it quits for tonight, got to go to work early.

Regardless, let me ask you if you have used this lens for video on a 7D & if so, did it perform well? Would you recommend it for a lens to do general video?

Thanks,'
Jeff

use it on my 550d but video performance wise it should be the same, it's 9 in the morning here and I have to leave now for a wedding and have one tommorow as well, if you want I can film a particular scene and post it on youtube, or upload a short sequence of the raw material to dropbox so you can have a look at it yourself? Will be earliest Sunday before I can do this.

I have both lenses. What I like about the Canon is the extra zoom range and the MF/AF switch. I got this lens first and shot plenty of video and mega timelapse photos. Very good as a walk around lens also. I never noticed any jaggedness to my video shots. If you go all the way down to 10mm, you will see some distortion towards fisheye effect, but not too bad. Back if off just a tad and it's gone.

The Tokina I got last year and have been using in place of the Canon just to see how it does. The lens has very nice optical quality, I'd say it out performs the Canon, but not by much. I prefer it for video indoors for the fixed aperture. I still prefer the Canon for walking around picture/video shooting. For timelapse, it's a mixed bag. On the Canon, I can set the camera up on a tripod during daylight hours and use the AF mode to get good focus, then I switch to MF so it doesn't change as the sun is going down and I'm shooting. The Tokina has a push-pull ring around the barrel which I can't seem to shift to MF mode without throwing off the setting. I think the Tokina will fit on a full frame sensor camera also, so that's a plus.

Mark

How wide a lens are you looking for? I always have to relate it back to crop factors and 35mm film cams.

10mm lens with 1.6 crop factor = equivalent 16mm, an effects lens.
11mm = 17.6, an effects lens.
16mm = 25.6, a true wide angle.
22mm = 35.2, a moderate wide angle.

Why go through the math? These equivalents can be very helpful! The most useful (equivalent) wide angle range for general photo/video is 24 to 28mm. This gives you good looks at interior spaces without much distortion, and is great for shooting rooms full of people.

Shorter than 24mm (equivalent) falls into what I call an effects lens; very useful if there's something you're shooting that requires it. However, lines near the edges won't be straight, and objects or people close to the camera look very distorted. A lot depends on what you're shooting; organic shapes in the outdoors don't seem as objectionable when distorted by extreme wide angles.

So much depends on what you're shooting and what you want it to look like. There's nothing wrong with extreme wide angles, but they fall outside of "representational" guidelines. I'm having a great time with a new Rokinon/Samyang 8mm (12.8 equiv) for stills, but I mostly do distortion correction in post, and I haven't found a video use for it yet. I'm sure I will, but that will be a heavily distorted shot!

I love the Canon 17-55mm range on a Canon crop cam (27-88mm equiv), to me this is the most useful range. Having a 28mm (45mm) wide would be very frustrating. It's really not wide at all.

YMMV. In your shoes I would consider renting before buying. In my town, just about any canon lens is available for $30 per day or weekend from a couple pro shops, then there's lensrentals.com, too.

FWIW, here is my sense of focal length use. All in 35mm equiv. These are offered as guidelines, not rules:
* <22mm, lots of wide angle effects and distortion
* 24-28mm, really useful for wide angle interiors and exteriors.
* 35mm, billed as a W.A., but really not very wide. Some say this is closer to what the eye sees.
* 50mm, the classic "normal" lens, optical engineers say this is most equivalent to the eye (ignoring the eye's much wider field of view)
* 85-105mm, classic head&shoulders or portrait lens. Very useful for shooting people int/ext. when you're in control of the distance to the subject.
* >150mm, useful for isolating people or action when you're not in control of the subject distance, eg. sports & wildlife. Not very useful for interiors.

Jeff,

This wide angle question crops up a lot on here. I went with Canon 10-22mm for my own reasons which are summarised here. I'm also looking forward to using this lens on my C100 (when that eventually arrives!)

Anyway, hope this helps.

CanonWideAngle (http://www.shootingimage.co.uk/MoreInformation/CanonWideAngle/CanonWideAngle.html)

I bought the Canon 15 to 85 for my 7D mostly for stills but it can be used for Video as well. Right about in the $850 price range you are looking at. Not a real Cine lens so for video it is not perfect.

Andy, great review on your choice of the Canon vs. Tokina superwides.

I was interested to read that you also have the Canon 17-55 f2.8. I love that lens! Along the lines of general lens usefulness, how would you compare the situations in which you are using the 10-22 vs the 17-55?

Hi Seth,

The LOVELY 17-55mm EF-S Canon "lives" on my 7D. I would say about 80% of the shots I do with that camera are with this lens (video and stills).

The Canon 10-22mm is a treat and gets used now and again - maybe 10% of the time - but when I need it REALLY delivers. Without it I'd be lost - it is a joy. It's a tack sharp lens for stills (like the 17-55mm - which is as far as I'm concerned is "L glass quality" in optics, but not in build quality) and a great lens on the Merlin Steadicam too.

It's not ideal in low light - the Tokina would win there (if you can handle the ultra shallow DOF at F2.8). Also, in it not being fixed aperture, that's (yet) another aspect to think about when shooting video - but heck that's rarely a problem (and at least its got a better, more useful zoom range).

More important (for me) is that I don't get much barrel distortion, even on full wide. Being in the Cambridge area I do a lot of techinical - and occasionally architectural - type work. Unexpected "bends in walls and precision engineered/hi-tech bits of kit" would draw unwelcome comments from my clients....

But as we all know, wide shot resolution (in video mode) is far from a strong point with the 7D, which is one reason I'm buying a Canon C100. I think both this 10-22mm and the 17-55mm will be great lenses on that cam!

Had the Tokina 11-16 while I owned a 7D and it was great. Will probably get one again if I go the Blackmagic route. If not...the new Zeiss 15mm f2.8 should be a killer. Also Rokinon just released a 14mm cinema style for EF mount. All will work great with the 7D

How wide a lens are you looking for? I always have to relate it back to crop factors and 35mm film cams.

10mm lens with 1.6 crop factor = equivalent 16mm, an effects lens.
11mm = 17.6, an effects lens.
16mm = 25.6, a true wide angle.
22mm = 35.2, a moderate wide angle.

Why go through the math? These equivalents can be very helpful! The most useful (equivalent) wide angle range for general photo/video is 24 to 28mm. This gives you good looks at interior spaces without much distortion, and is great for shooting rooms full of people.

Shorter than 24mm (equivalent) falls into what I call an effects lens; very useful if there's something you're shooting that requires it. However, lines near the edges won't be straight, and objects or people close to the camera look very distorted. A lot depends on what you're shooting; organic shapes in the outdoors don't seem as objectionable when distorted by extreme wide angles.

So much depends on what you're shooting and what you want it to look like. There's nothing wrong with extreme wide angles, but they fall outside of "representational" guidelines. I'm having a great time with a new Rokinon/Samyang 8mm (12.8 equiv) for stills, but I mostly do distortion correction in post, and I haven't found a video use for it yet. I'm sure I will, but that will be a heavily distorted shot!

I love the Canon 17-55mm range on a Canon crop cam (27-88mm equiv), to me this is the most useful range. Having a 28mm (45mm) wide would be very frustrating. It's really not wide at all.

YMMV. In your shoes I would consider renting before buying. In my town, just about any canon lens is available for $30 per day or weekend from a couple pro shops, then there's lensrentals.com, too.

FWIW, here is my sense of focal length use. All in 35mm equiv. These are offered as guidelines, not rules:
* <22mm, lots of wide angle effects and distortion
* 24-28mm, really useful for wide angle interiors and exteriors.
* 35mm, billed as a W.A., but really not very wide. Some say this is closer to what the eye sees.
* 50mm, the classic "normal" lens, optical engineers say this is most equivalent to the eye (ignoring the eye's much wider field of view)
* 85-105mm, classic head&shoulders or portrait lens. Very useful for shooting people int/ext. when you're in control of the distance to the subject.
* >150mm, useful for isolating people or action when you're not in control of the subject distance, eg. sports & wildlife. Not very useful for interiors.

Excellent information. Thank you for taking the time to post all of this! I have a 28-135mm lens (+ a number of larger lens) which as you stated, it not wide enough thus the reason for the post. Based on what you are saying (guidelines) & others regarding quality of lens, it appears either would do well for me. The main thing that made me want to get a wider angle lens was shooting in Angor Wat this summer which is a lot of indoor type shots & shooting exterior, landscape type shots of massive temples. I have a number of telephoto lens (surf photography) which was my primary reason to begin shooting but now I am branching out. Regarding portrait, I have the 100mm Macro lens by Canon & believe it or not, it doubles as an excellent portrait type lens. My 28-135mm has been my jack of all trades lens. I believe if I get one of these wider angles lens, it might be on my camera a lot on vacations.

I have both lenses. What I like about the Canon is the extra zoom range and the MF/AF switch. I got this lens first and shot plenty of video and mega timelapse photos. Very good as a walk around lens also. I never noticed any jaggedness to my video shots. If you go all the way down to 10mm, you will see some distortion towards fisheye effect, but not too bad. Back if off just a tad and it's gone.

The Tokina I got last year and have been using in place of the Canon just to see how it does. The lens has very nice optical quality, I'd say it out performs the Canon, but not by much. I prefer it for video indoors for the fixed aperture. I still prefer the Canon for walking around picture/video shooting. For timelapse, it's a mixed bag. On the Canon, I can set the camera up on a tripod during daylight hours and use the AF mode to get good focus, then I switch to MF so it doesn't change as the sun is going down and I'm shooting. The Tokina has a push-pull ring around the barrel which I can't seem to shift to MF mode without throwing off the setting. I think the Tokina will fit on a full frame sensor camera also, so that's a plus.

Mark

Thank you so much for posting! I did not think I would find a person that owns both. It sounds like I cannot go wrong with either based on your summary. It sounds like the Canon is more versatile but a bit more limited on available light with a smaller aperture?? If you had to own one, which would it be & if the Canon, is it worth the extra $ in your mind?

use it on my 550d but video performance wise it should be the same, it's 9 in the morning here and I have to leave now for a wedding and have one tommorow as well, if you want I can film a particular scene and post it on youtube, or upload a short sequence of the raw material to dropbox so you can have a look at it yourself? Will be earliest Sunday before I can do this.

Noa:

Of course I would appreciate it if you post some footage of that lens. If you decide to do it, if possible try to show the range of the lens so I can see the extremes of the 10mm to 22mm. Thanks ahead of time....

Just to add to the conversation, the attached comparison photo & comment was posted on B & H photo in the customer review section:

Painfully soft

By Peter Pan

from Bellingham, WA

About Me Pro Photographer


I spent HOURS trying to decide between this and the Canon 10-22. I wanted the sharpest lens in this price bracket. I first got the Canon and got sharpness similar to my normal zoom lens (18-200mm). I was hoping for better so I ordered the Tokina 11-16 and did a side by side comparison at 11mm and 16mm at 3.5 and 4.5 respectivly. The center sharpness was about the same, but the edges on the Tokina shot were ridiculously soft. No comparison. I wish I had back all the time I wasted on considering this lens.

Also the Tokina is considerably heavier and the zoom ring rotates the reverse directions that Canon users are used to. Similar: Canon 10-22mm

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX Autofocus Lens ATX116PRODXC

Thank you so much for posting! I did not think I would find a person that owns both. It sounds like I cannot go wrong with either based on your summary. It sounds like the Canon is more versatile but a bit more limited on available light with a smaller aperture?? If you had to own one, which would it be & if the Canon, is it worth the extra $ in your mind?

If I had to choose between the two, I'd take the Canon. It's only $50 more.

I have a dozen lenses for my Canon dSLRs, including 5 "L" series, and this 10-22mm is by far the funnest lens I've used. The range that it offers is nice. Fewer lens swaps. I snapped a shot inside a dark club. It was handheld taken with a Canon 50D. You can see the distortion it gives cranked over to full 10mm. If I wanted the walls to be straight, I'd shoot it with the TS-E 24mm lens. In this shot, I am standing in a doorway and nearly get all 4 walls.

Mark
Oh, and the Tokina will fit full-frame BTW.

Tokina works fine for me. Love the WA when needed (i.e. shooting on a fishing boat). Wider is better. Tokina quality is fine.

I guess it comes down to me is if someone can show a video clip of the Canon lens. I want to make sure there is not any jagged edges on the video like I read. It sounds like both lens are great though, cannot go wrong with either.

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX Digital Zoom Lens (for Canon EOS Cameras)

I own and use this lens a lot. Very sharp, good contrast. The only thing to really look for is the fringing that happens (at least to me...) in backlit situations.

L

Shot some comparison video with the Canon EF-S 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm.


Wide Angle Comparison on Vimeo


The zooming is a little jittery but you can see the range of these lenses.

Thanks for that comparison shoot!

I'm seeing little exposure bumps as the canon is zoomed; assuming that is due to the non-constant aperture?

The Tokina does *not* look crazy soft at the edges, as was noted above. That's the problem with internet truths...

The longer zoom range on the Canon looks very useful, moreso than the Tokina, but I'd want to be at f4.5 so I could use it while keeping shutter and ISO constant!

I do like my Tokina a great deal, and am happy to have settled on 3 fast-ish lenses with the same max (and fixed) aperture and same filter size.

No contest.

Tokina 11-16mm Review (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm)

Seth, yes the exposure bumps are when the aperture changes while zooming. It doesn't matter if I set the camera's aperture adjustment to something higher than f/4.5, the lens will still do that behavior. As far as image quality, I don't see any real difference. The 5mm zoom range of the Tokina makes it nearly a prime lens with slightly better low light performance than the Canon. I tried to show the amount of distortion near the extreme wide end in this video, but it isn't as noticeable as I normally see it. Maybe I was too far from the buildings, but the Canon will distort at full wide. Going to 11 or 11.5 will help a lot. Glad to hear you found a good solution.

No contest.

Tokina 11-16mm Review (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm)

Right, no contest, the winner is the Canon 10-22mm.

Ken Rockwell's conclusion says:

"If you shoot Canon, get the Canon 10-22mm, since it doesn't cost much more and has a much wider and longer zoom range. I have not compared its sharpness, however the Canon's distortion control is superior."

And in his review of the Canon 10-22, he states, "This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has less distortion and costs less. I paid over $1,000 for my Nikon; this superior 10 - 22 sells for $840 here, here or here."

Mark Watson

Shot some comparison video with the Canon EF-S 10-22mm and Tokina 11-16mm.


Wide Angle Comparison on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/68949252)


The zooming is a little jittery but you can see the range of these lenses.
I would choose the Tokina because the Canon always has some flickering (aperture ?) during the zoom in out. I mainly shoot video.

Alex

What's I found a little odd is I figured if I set the aperture to something like f4.5 or higher, the lens wouldn't do that behavior as it's zoomed. But it made no difference.


Mark Watson