I have a canon T3i and want to get a upgrade wide angle lens for landscape -night and general photos

[susie55]

I am wondering if I should go with a 15-85mm f 3.5 or 18-55 mm STM or B& H recomends perhaps the Tokin ATX11-16 f2.8...some reviews were not favorable although most were.....would prefer to not spend a fortune but love the look of those wide angle shots... Thanks for your tips and help:)

[Skirball]

Canon just came out with a new ultrawide - 10-18.   It has image stabilization, the performance looks decent, and it's only $300.  Initial reception seemed that it was a really good lens for the price, but I haven't really followed it much since it first debuted.

I own the older Canon 10-22, which is a fantastic wide angle lens, but costs twice as much, and doesn't have IS.  It's built much better than the 10-18, and has a little more range, but I don't know that it's worth twice the cost.

[Ifly1956]

I bought the Canon 10-18 a couple months ago, and so far I really like it. Canon didn't put a lot of money into the lens body, but they seemed to have put it into the glass in this lens.

[JonKline]

I wouldn't worry too much about image stabilization. You'll rarely notice it on wider lenses. I own a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and really like it on crop bodies like the T3i. It's useful and not too bendy around the edges. My only issue is that it's not as sharp as Canon's wide-angle zoom or any of the primes available. It's great for video, but if I were doing just pro landscapes, I'd look to Canon or manual Rokinon lenses.

[Skirball]

---

@JonKline wrote:
I own a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and really like it on crop bodies like the T3i... My only issue is that it's not as sharp as Canon's wide-angle zoom...

---

That a pretty big issue, in my opinion.

Just given the pricepoint, I really couldn't recommend any of the third party alternatives unless you needed f/2.8 for some reason.  It was different when the 10-22 was the only option at $700 or so, but Canon really crushed the market with this $300 option.

As to the image stabilization - if I could get a cheaper lighter version without it I might consider it.  And sure, it's not near as functional as it is on a longer lens.  But if it gets tossed in the package at $300 I'm not going to complain.  As far as benefit: I've hand held my 10-22 at 1/5 - 1/10 plenty of times when without a tripod.  If I had the option to  push it a couple stops more, or just up my capture rate by flicking a switch, I would have used it.  There was a whole lot of talk against IS when Canon put it in their latest versions of their ultrawides, but it's better to have it than not as far as I see.