Which Wide Angle

I'd like some advice and feedback on the following two lens the Canon EF-S 10-22mm Wide Angle and the Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye.

I'm about to purchase either one but at the moment I'm a bit unsure which would be better for my purposes. I want a good lens for wrecks, sharks, mantas, scenery and if lucky enough whales.

The Canon is more expensive however has a greater zoom range and can be used above water without the fisheye effect, however it can't focus as closely as the Tokina but can support filters with the right port.

The Tokina is cheaper and as I understand it the fisheye effect is cancelled out underwater by the use of a dome port however it can't take filters.

The Canon apparently is the equivalent of a 16-35mm zoom for a 35mm film camera so I don't know why they call it a 10-22mm however I am not sure if the Tokina is equialent to a 10-17mm 35mm film camera either. Marketing is a pain I just want the facts when I buy things.

Also the Tokina has a macro ratio of 1:2.56 but I can't find the info for the Canon Macro ratio if it has one?

If anyone can shed some light on these issues or has personal experience with these and even examples I would much appreciate it. Please dumb it down a bit I'm still learning all this stuff.

Cheers

Pete

I'm a Nikon shooter and have a Nikon 12-24 that I bought primarily for underwater use, I think it's a great lens but I haven't used it underwater since I bought the Tokina 10-17. The close focus and wider field of view of the Tokina just seems much better for underwater use than the Nikon. Also at the 17mm end it's about the same as the nikon at 12mm which is where I used the Nikon most of the time.

The fisheye effect is not cancelled by the dome port it's still very evident when shooting anything with straight lines at 10mm, it's less evident at 17mm and fortunately there aren't that many straight lines underwater anyway.

It's difficult to comapre the 2 lenses as they have such different characteristics but I'd buy the 10-17.

I agree with Ken. I too was a 12-24 user until the Tokina. It's terrific for reef scenes and wrecks. The fisheye, as Ken says, isn't anything like as noticeable u/w as it is topside. I find the Tokina not much use topside - and switch back to the 12-24.

I think you will also find the Tokina much easier to use and more forgiving particularly in the corners. My disclaimer here is that I shoot Nikon, so I am making an inference to the 10-22 which may not be totally correct. Though some people are able to get the wide rectilinears (like the 12-24 and Canon10-22) to work well underwater, I have not been so lucky, even with diopters. And even when I have achieved good results, it has not been consistent. Topside is of course a different story. The close focus of the Tokina, right onto the domeport, is not a minor detail, it allows you to get shots you just cannot get with with lenses that focus even a few inches further out. The only reason I would buy the 10-22 is if having one lens for topside and underwater is very important to you.

I use both the canon 10-22 and the tokina 10-17. I have not had issues with corner softness with the 10-22 and my aquatica, and I do not use diopters. I use the lenses for different purposes. The tokina is a great lens for reef scenics and CFWA shots. I prefer the rectilinear 10-22 for shooting sharks and other large animals to avoid what some people on the forums call the "tadpole" syndrome - ie distortion. I think the 10-22 renders the animals a bit more naturally, while still allowing to get close. As far as topside - I use the 10-22 much more than the tokina - unless I specifically want fisheye distortion. At the end of the day both lenses are great choices in my opinion - and the tokina is a great deal at the price. I have had the 10-22 since I purchased by 20D and bought the tokina specifically for underwater use. If you will base your decision on overall use then the 10-22 might have some advantages, however if this is more for underwater then you may want to save a few dollars and get the tokina. I think you will be satisfied with the performance of the lens in either case. I hope that helps a little - good luck and happy shooting...

cheers!

-MDP

canon / aquatica / ikelite

www.matthewdpotenskiphoto.com

I cannot comment on the Canon Lens but I've been happy with the Tokina 10-17 for U/W work. Topside it has a fairly limited use. It's great for CFWA as well. I vastly prefer it over the Nikon 12-24mm lens which was always soft in the corners and I tried a variety of diopters.

I prefer the rectilinear 10-22 for shooting sharks and other large animals to avoid what some people on the forums call the "tadpole" syndrome - ie distortion.

www.matthewdpotenskiphoto.com

Here's a baby "tadpole" taken with the Tokina lens so you have some idea (can't remember what the focal length was offhand):

Regards

Rinjani

people have already given lots of good advice.

the 10-17 fisheye is much wider than the canon 10-22.

use the canon 10-22 for sharks and wrecks, if you want straight lines.

use the 10-17 fisheye for mantas, whales, scenery, and wrecks, if curved lines are ok

hope this helps

Scott

Lets clear this up a bit. As Scott said above, the 10-17mm Fisheye is much wider than the 10-22mm. Focal lengths in fisheye terms mean slightly different -

On a canon 1.6x crop camera (20D-40D, Rebel):

the Tokina 10-17mm FE sees about 180-100 degrees and focuses to 5.6 inches for a 1:2.5 macro ratio

the Canon 10-22mm lens sees 107.5-63.5 degrees and focuses to 9.5 inches for a 1:6 macro ratio.

you can see they're actually complimentary focal ranges, the canon picking up at the long end of the tokina. The tokina is probably the favorite for its huge view, macro focusing for CFWA's, and sharp corners due to the curved image produced by the dome port. Ideal for wrecks, posed diver & reef shots, and CFWA (close focus wide angle).

The 10-22mm will be better for big animals like sharks (though many prefer the 17-40mm for sharks) and whales (though the 17mm end of the tokina is still great). It will also be a far better topside lens.

Cheers,

Chris

Thanks everyone for the great information especially undertow that answered everything for me and I now know I will go with the Tokina first and look into the Canon in a few months.

Cheers

Pete

P.S. Nice Tadpole

The 10-22mm will be better for big animals like sharks (though many prefer the 17-40mm for sharks) and whales (though the 17mm end of the tokina is still great). It will also be a far better topside lens.

Just wanted to comment here - I have used my 17-40L underwater and still prefer my 10-22 for sharks etc. While I have gotten sharp corners with both the tokina and canon 10-22, I did notice corner softness with the 17-40L. I use the 17-40L a ton topside but havent put it back in the housing after a few attempts. I think this lens would be great on a full frame for underwater use, but I haven't been too impressed with the underwater results with the crop sensor...

cheers!

- MDP