Tokina 10-17mm vs Canon 10-22mm for Canon 7D

[TkdCol 1]

Hi, I'm looking at getting a wide angle lense (I can only afford one wide angle and one macro set-up atm, so both is not an option). The top 2 contenders seem to be the Tokina 10-17mm and the Canon 10-22mm. I hope to shoot larger animals like whales, sharks, large schools and to a lesser extend some reefscapes and wrecks. The Tokina seems to be the more popular lense, but I'm concerned about the ballooning that comes with the fish eye effect. Any advice or experience is appreciated.

Thanks.

[ChrisRoss 150]

The choice of lens is really set by what you shoot the most.  The 10-17 and 10-22 are really not interchangeable, the fisheye lens gives you a 180° diagonal down to 98°/81° diagonal/horizontal, while the 10-22 zooms from 106°/96° to 63°/54°  Diagonal/horizontal.  In 35mm equivalent terms the 10-17 is like a full frame fisheye to 15.5mm lens while the 10-22 is like a 16-35mm lens, so there is no overlap in focal length.  The best way to compare a fisheye to a rectilinear lens is to convert the fisheye horizontal field to 35mm equivalent focal length of a rectilinear lens as the fisheye stretches the corners the most and comparing diagonal field of view can be misleading.

In addition you could use the fisheye in a very small dome (100-140mm) but would need a larger dome for the 10-22, the Nauticam port charts suggest that the 230mm dome is most optimised.  The big dome is harder to travel with and quite unwieldy.  You could add a 1.4x to the 10-17 to give you more reach if needed - it would require another focus gear and a 20mm extension to use it.

The fisheye effect is really only noticeable with subjects having straight lines, you can see the effect on reefs if include the reeftop in the frame, but if you shoot upwards, this is very rarely noticed, so mostly you may want it for shooting wrecks. 

I would think for big animals the 10-17 would be most useful, adding the 1.4x for example if shooting sharks that don't come so close.  The benefit of the fisheye is that you can get closer and shoot through less water.  A multi purpose alternative with a bit more reach might be a WACP-C, it still has barrel distortion and is probably quite suitable for large animals, you would use it with the 18-55mm lens and it would give you 130°-46° diagonal field of view.  Roughly equivalent to a 16-50mm rectilinear in field of view.

[TkdCol 1]

19 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

The choice of lens is really set by what you shoot the most.  The 10-17 and 10-22 are really not interchangeable, the fisheye lens gives you a 180° diagonal down to 98°/81° diagonal/horizontal, while the 10-22 zooms from 106°/96° to 63°/54°  Diagonal/horizontal.  In 35mm equivalent terms the 10-17 is like a full frame fisheye to 15.5mm lens while the 10-22 is like a 16-35mm lens, so there is no overlap in focal length.  The best way to compare a fisheye to a rectilinear lens is to convert the fisheye horizontal field to 35mm equivalent focal length of a rectilinear lens as the fisheye stretches the corners the most and comparing diagonal field of view can be misleading.

In addition you could use the fisheye in a very small dome (100-140mm) but would need a larger dome for the 10-22, the Nauticam port charts suggest that the 230mm dome is most optimised.  The big dome is harder to travel with and quite unwieldy.  You could add a 1.4x to the 10-17 to give you more reach if needed - it would require another focus gear and a 20mm extension to use it.

The fisheye effect is really only noticeable with subjects having straight lines, you can see the effect on reefs if include the reeftop in the frame, but if you shoot upwards, this is very rarely noticed, so mostly you may want it for shooting wrecks. 

I would think for big animals the 10-17 would be most useful, adding the 1.4x for example if shooting sharks that don't come so close.  The benefit of the fisheye is that you can get closer and shoot through less water.  A multi purpose alternative with a bit more reach might be a WACP-C, it still has barrel distortion and is probably quite suitable for large animals, you would use it with the 18-55mm lens and it would give you 130°-46° diagonal field of view.  Roughly equivalent to a 16-50mm rectilinear in field of view.

Thanks, a very detailed reply. Being as cost is an important factor (large domes are expensive) and I don't get the opportunity to see many larger wrecks (where straight lines might be important), it seems like the tokina is a much better option. I guess there's a reason it's so popular. 

Regarding the the extension tube: to use one is it just a case of adding an extension tube to the port of the same thickness? (Sorry if this is a seemingly very obvious answer, but I am new to UW photography)

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

20 minutes ago, TkdCol said:

Thanks, a very detailed reply. Being as cost is an important factor (large domes are expensive) and I don't get the opportunity to see many larger wrecks (where straight lines might be important), it seems like the tokina is a much better option. I guess there's a reason it's so popular. 

Regarding the the extension tube: to use one is it just a case of adding an extension tube to the port of the same thickness? (Sorry if this is a seemingly very obvious answer, but I am new to UW photography)

 

Yes, you add a 20mm extension tube and you would need a different zoom gear - the Kenko 1.4x is what you would need to use and it is 20mm thick.

[TimG 62]

Hi TkdCol

Let me add to Chris’ excellent advice.  

I’ve been using the Tokina for years, It’s great for wide-angle on a crop sensor and is my go-to choice. As long as your subject is not on top of the lens, the fisheye effect is not so distorted.  Even on wrecks I rarely find the FE effect is over-whelming.

If cost is a major issue the Tokina is ideal.  You can certainly use it behind a 100mm dome but you might need a short extension ring to get the lens correctly positioned. Your housing/ dome manufacturer will advise on that and will print details of the best dome/extension ring combination for a given lens. Then you’ll need a zoom ring.  

The other advantage of the Tokina is that by adding a 1.4 teleconverter (a TC) you can shoot Close Focus Wide Angle (CFWA) with the small dome. This allows for some very dramatic composition of a critter close up shown against its habitat.  For this you need the TC (check out the Kenko), an extra extension and zoom rings.  This might be all down the road but are worth having in the back of your mind .

As Chris explains, a 10-22 is a different lens and not FE. I do find that photographing larger fish that stay further away is not always practical with the Tokina . For that a 10-22 is better. But that then does need the larger, more expensive dome.  Maybe something just to bear in mind when shooting say sharks or dolphins etc. 

I just don’t think you can go far wrong though with the Tokina on a crop sensor camera. For the majority of subjects and for the majority of users, it’s a highly practical and cost effective solution  

 

[ChrisRoss 150]

24 minutes ago, TimG said:

As Chris explains, a 10-22 is a different lens and not FE. I do find that photographing larger fish that stay further away is not always practical with the Tokina . For that a 10-22 is better. But that then does need the larger, more expensive dome.  Maybe something just to bear in mind when shooting say sharks or dolphins etc. 

I just don’t think you can go far wrong though with the Tokina on a crop sensor camera. For the majority of subjects and for the majority of users, it’s a highly practical and cost effective solution  

 

In fact the horizontal field of the 10-17 with 1.4x is about 57°  which is about the field of a 34mm full frame equivalent.  So the Tokina becomes around a 20 -34mm FF equivalent lens or in actual focal length it's  like a 12.5- 21.3 mm rectilinear in terms of horizontal field.  So in terms of horizontal field it's very close to the 10-22mm lens.  So I would argue that the 10-17 with 1.4x is also a reasonable substitute for a 10-22 as long as the barrel distortion is not going to be  a problem.

[TkdCol 1]

Thanks everybody, big help

[String 17]

I've used both.

Started with a 10-22 then moved to the 10-17.

As above the FOV is much better with the 10-17 and its a useful zoom range.  Very nice close focus too.

The 10-22 as well i found no matter what size dome or aperture i used the corners were always soft.  Much more so than the Tokina.

The only thing the 10-22 "wins" at is it displays less chromatic aberration but this is something easily addressed with a single click in post so i dont class it as a bonus.

Since getting the 10-17 i never went back to the 10-22.  For me its a far superior lens.  The only issue i can think of is maybe if you're doing things with lots of straight lines or in a pool where the curvature of the 10-17 is noticeable and distracting.

 

[Stoo 42]

On 1/18/2023 at 4:05 AM, TimG said:

Super tip, Stoo. I knew I should have paid more attention at chemistry

I assure you, it's the only thing I remember.... ;-)