Should I trade my EF-S 10-22 for the Tokina 10-17?

I'm about to get a housing for my EOS 400D, and was planning on using my EF-S 10-22 with it. However, given all the love for the Tokina 10-17 FE I'm considering getting one of those and selling the 10-22. Would this be the right thing to do?

Should add that this will also depend on how well the Tokina 16-50 (which I have on order) performs in the WA range.

I'm about to get a housing for my EOS 400D, and was planning on using my EF-S 10-22 with it. However, given all the love for the Tokina 10-17 FE I'm considering getting one of those and selling the 10-22. Would this be the right thing to do?

 

Should add that this will also depend on how well the Tokina 16-50 (which I have on order) performs in the WA range.

Keep the 10-22 and get the Tokina 10-17 as well, they complement each other. You will have a complete WA-arsenal; with only two lenses covering 60-167° FoV.

The 16-50 is unproven, but might turn out to be a nice swim around-lens (not particularly wide though). You will probably need a dioptre for the 16-50, but not for the 10-22 and the 10-17 because of their better CFD-capabilities.

/christian

Is the added range from 18-22 really all that useful?

I like the 10-22 ON LAND but don't see myself switching between this and the Tokina much underwater. As for land based I would probably be able to live with the WA starting at 16 mm.

It's also a matter of costs, of course...

The 16-50 is unproven, I'm not planning on using it UW, but I will get it on Tuesday most likely and will be able to test it for a couple of days then to decide whether it can match the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

hey ktw,

as christian was hinting at,

its difficult to compare the focal lengths of fisheye (tokina 10-17mm) vs a rectilinear lenses (canon 10-22mm)

10mm focal length in a fisheye lens does not equal 10mm in a rectilinear lens.

people often look at the angle of coverage of lens (which can be measured diagonally, horizontally, or vertically).

I believe the approximate diagonal angles of coverage of the lenses are the following:

tokina 10-17mm (canon mount) : 90 deg. - 167 deg. (the nikon mount gets you to 180)

canon 10-22mm: 63 deg - 107 deg

so as you see, there's not as much overlap as you would think.

also, FYI, many people (but not all) find a rectilinear lens much more useful topside than a fisheye..

hope this helps

scott

Is the added range from 18-22 really all that useful?

 

I like the 10-22 ON LAND but don't see myself switching between this and the Tokina much underwater. As for land based I would probably be able to live with the WA starting at 16 mm.

 

It's also a matter of costs, of course...

 

The 16-50 is unproven, I'm not planning on using it UW, but I will get it on Tuesday most likely and will be able to test it for a couple of days then to decide whether it can match the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

There's really not much overlap. The Canon 10-22 pretty much takes over where the Tokina ends (at app. 100° FoV, one is a fisheye, remember). Which one is to preffer? It is off course very dependent on what you shoot and what your personal ideas/taste are, but they cover different situations and both are needed, inmo, to have a 'complete' WA-setup. A very neit 'complete' setup

Do you shoot ON LAND!?

good luck

/christian

I actually shoot above water as well.

I understand the aspects of the overlap, however, if we throw in the Tokina 16-50, that pretty much takes care of the lower angles of the Canon (and from the tests I've read it's supposed to be sharp at 16 mm, although I may have to take the aperture down to f/4, which is still equivalent to what the Canon gives).

Do I need the 10 mm / 100+ angle that the Canon gives on LAND? Not sure...

Will I be switching between the Canon and the Tokina under water? Not sure here either. I mostly want it for wreck photography in Sweden where darkness and sometimes murky water leads me to believe the Tokina will be on the camera most of the time. I also like the effect that FE lenses give when it comes to wreck photos.

Out of curiosity, are there any samples of shots with the Tokina at 17 mm, preferably of wrecks? And does anyone have sample shots of it on land, again at 17 mm?

On land the wider rectalinear lense is more useful than the fisheye. It's a matter of taste but most people prefer straight edged WA photographs to curved ones on land. This is because the subjects are more familur. Underwater the wider angles are hardly noticable. My wife for example absolutely hates fisheye shots. Architecture and people generally look terrible in fisheye shots although some artistic shots can be made.

In wreck photography it is much like topside photography. Unlike reefs and fish you again have straight lines and familur subjects. While you get a wider view many people expect to see the lines of gunwales and doors straight. You will have to work hard to control this effect and use it to your advantage. I like to use very wide rectalinear lenses for wrecks.

I actually shoot above water as well.

 

I understand the aspects of the overlap, however, if we throw in the Tokina 16-50, that pretty much takes care of the lower angles of the Canon (and from the tests I've read it's supposed to be sharp at 16 mm, although I may have to take the aperture down to f/4, which is still equivalent to what the Canon gives).

 

Do I need the 10 mm / 100+ angle that the Canon gives on LAND? Not sure...

 

Will I be switching between the Canon and the Tokina under water? Not sure here either. I mostly want it for wreck photography in Sweden where darkness and sometimes murky water leads me to believe the Tokina will be on the camera most of the time. I also like the effect that FE lenses give when it comes to wreck photos.

 

Out of curiosity, are there any samples of shots with the Tokina at 17 mm, preferably of wrecks? And does anyone have sample shots of it on land, again at 17 mm?

I'd say that the 10-12-14 range is what gets most usage on a wide rectilinear zoom. The 10-17 and the 10-22 do overlap here, but sometimes you really need those straight lines (like on a wreck). You can off course straighten a fisheye out in software, but personally I very much preffer to see the final image in the viewfinder. Then, perhaps, you go on a holiday to warm, clear, blue waters and wants to shoot a reef shark or two? The 10-22 will be very useful. The 10-17, in non-baited situations, will be too wide, even at the narrow end. And a midrange zoom will not be wide enough for that lucky close pass. You want that 75-100° FoV. But in the Baltic Sea, the 10-17 will most certainly be on your camera on 9 dives out of 10. So the 10-17 certainly makes more sense initially. But you really should have both and you already own the 10-22...

The 16-50 is unproven, both on land and UW. And even if it proves to be very sharp on land, I'd be careful in assuming it will automatically be great for UW-use. It's not always the case (some Nikon-glass springs into mind). A lot of things come into play when you put the lens behind a piece of plastic that acts as a second lens and then try to shoot through water - such as finding an appropriate port, the right extension to have it properly alligned and most probably what dioptre to use because it has a CFD j u s t a liitle too far away. If you don't get it all right, superior sharpness on land means nothing. It's not like the 10-22 with it's very good CFD and several 'tested & approved' set-ups. I'm sure everything will be fine and dandy, but even when sorted out, it will not do the same job as the 10-22.

Have you considered getting a cheaper mid-range zoom to be able to keep the 10-22? The Sigma 18-50/2.8 has gotten good reviews and I believe it is a bit cheaper than the Tokina. It is also a 'proven' UW scout-lens.

Anyway, it's your call.

Good luck and good night - putting a 5-year old to bed. I'll probably fall asleep too

Tack för mig.

/christian

I'd say that the 10-12-14 range is what gets most usage on a wide rectilinear zoom. The 10-17 and the 10-22 do overlap here, but sometimes you really need those straight lines (like on a wreck). You can off course straighten a fisheye out in software, but personally I very much preffer to see the final image in the viewfinder. Then, perhaps, you go on a holiday to warm, clear, blue waters and wants to shoot a reef shark or two? The 10-22 will be very useful. The 10-17, in non-baited situations, will be too wide, even at the narrow end. And a midrange zoom will not be wide enough for that lucky close pass. You want that 75-100� FoV. But in the Baltic Sea, the 10-17 will most certainly be on your camera on 9 dives out of 10. So the 10-17 certainly makes more sense initially. But you really should have both and you already own the 10-22...

Hmm, good call. I am a bit interested in the new Tok 11-16 f/2.8 for those situations, for reasons below...

The 16-50 is unproven, both on land and UW.

Not planning to use it UW actually... This is a pure land lens for me. As for unproven... Got mine today so have only been able to test it indoors with flash (430EX). It's wonderful! Even at 16 mm f/2.8 corner sharpness is decent. I'd say it's as good as the 10-22 and definitely in line with the much more expensive 17-55 IS. Build quality is excellent, and the lack of IS (the main reason I might have taken the 17-55 over it) is not much of a problem. The IQ is simply put very good and combined with the build quality I would take this over the Sigma or Tamron options anyday.

I will try to take it outside in a couple of days for some daylight shots as well, but so far I don't have any complaints whatsoever.

Can't really afford to both keep the 10-22, buy the 10-17 and UW kit at this point unfortunately.

Tack själv Christian! Very much appreciate the input.

I am a bit interested in the new Tok 11-16 f/2.8 for those situations, for reasons below...

Very usable range, 2.8 looks nice, but the CFD... Wouldn't be surpised if the 10-22 is much sharper behind a dome.

/c