Canon EOS lens not zooming properly

[Gun-master]

Real buy most likely won't occur still spring, but I am getting irritate for a rectilinear, ultra wide zoom. I am shooting with a crop-factor body and Canon EOS, so the logical option would be the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, but this lens regularly trades for $800+ in spite of having neither set opening nor image stabilization, and that makes me alternately laugh and choke in a fashion which can't possibly be healthy. A competitor emerges Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ATX. Still in the $800 range, but specified the f/2.8 steady aperture, which might be appeal it. It also uses a clutched focus wheel that mimics Canon's permanent manual focus system, although without the ultrasonic motor. I am somewhat puzzled by the reality which the Canon version of this lens costs $150 more than the Nikon version, but it gets good reviews at any rate. Which lens is the mainly exceptional price or performance ratio at this point? Something newest on the horizon, which might be a superior choice than the over?

[Hardwareman]

While the earliest APS-C digital cameras be initiated there weren't extensive- viewpoint built completely for this design, thus it was not possible to search out a genuine wide: even a 14mm on APS gives the comparable of 21mm. Nikon was the primary to begin or introduce an wide lens twisted totally for APS - the Nikkor 12-24 f/4 - and in the next years every other company or manufacturer have declared their APS-C wide angles. These lenses wrap entirely the APS-C format, if you increase them on full frame cameras you will obtain a tiny image with big black corners, but they permit to get a genuine wide angle: 10mm, which is the alike of 15mm on full frame.

[Maxforu]

The Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6 performs very glowing in tests. It is not invariable aperture, also, but except you are shooting telephoto zoom or show or movie, it is not a big deal in a UWAZ. Ultra wide angles do not require a rapid shutter speed to keep away from camera shake, and I discover myself using my m4/3 7-14/4 on a tripod other frequently than not. My only anxiety would be Sigma's well-known difference or you can say variation guild and visual quality, therefore if you were departing to acquire, I'd suggest testing said lens on your camera earlier than pulling the trigger.

[Killen]

I have been in this similar liner. I still have the Tokina 11-16 2.8 the same as my lead competitor (not even allowing for whichever of Nikon's glass in the DX wide-angle spectrum), but I have been considering suggestions that their 12-24 f/4, while missing that additional discontinue, is sharper at f/4 than the 11-16. On the other hand, the 11-16 barely appears similar to a slouch, moreover, and the quicker shutter speeds might counter-balance whichever movement or camera shake blur that would otherwise be acquired. And after that I feel about the additional wideness of the Sigma 8-16; for daylight shooting, the aperture dissimilarity is insignificant for me. On the other side, I too do a set of low-light, no-flash photography.