Canon 10-22mm vs Tokina 11-16mm

Dear Photonians

I'm planning to get a Ultra Wide Angle lens in the future. So far only 2 lenses are matching my decision making criteria:

1) Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
2) Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX 11-16mm F/2.8

I'm comparing these 2 lens in the aspect of focal length, aperture, resolution, price, quality, focusing mechanism and etc.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm:

Pros
1) 10mm widest focal length
2) 10-22mm bigger zoom range
3) USM for faster focusing, with Full Time Manual (FTM)
4) Lens does not extend during zoom/focusing
5) Less distortion at 10mm compared to Tokina's 11mm (web review)
6) Lower Chromatic Aberration (CA) compared to Tokina

Cons
1) EF-S Lens, unable to used at FF body (in future perhaps)
2) more expensive compared to Tokina
3) Resolution lower than Tokina (based on web reviews)
4) Non-constant and small aperture
5) Higher vignetting compared to Tokina

-------------------------

And here's the Tokina 11-16mm:

Pros
1) Cheaper
2) Bigger and constant f/2.8 aperture
3) Higher resolution compared to Canon (web review)
4) Less vignetting compared to Canon
5) Can be used on FF body (although only usable at 16mm)
6) Lens does not extend during focusing/zooming

Cons
1) Narrower 11mm widest focal length
2) Small zoom range 11-16mm
3) Conventional focusing motor (not USM alike), no FTM
4) Higher CA compared to Canon

So which lens should I choose? I have never tried both lens (and I do not know which shop willing to let me try and not buying). Is the 10mm vs 11mm (16mm vs 17.6mm for effective focal length) a big deal?

Although some people say f/2.8 isn't necessary, but Tokina can be used under low light condition better compared to Canon, especially hand held.

1) Is the cost of RM300+ extra in Canon 10-22mm worthwhile? To pay RM300 more you get longer zoom range, 1 mm wider focal length, less CA but smaller max aperture, more vignetting and lower resolution.

2) To pay RM300+ cheaper you get better resolution, less vignetting and bigger and constant max aperture, but falloff in zoom range, more CA and narrower 11mm focal length.

There is a common mistake when people will think camera maker's original lens will definitely outperform 3rd party lenses. However this is not to me, I only choose the best lens that suits me and not the brand.

So which is your choice? The reason I start this thread is to have opinions to assist me to make decision between these 2 and hopefully anyone else facing the same dilemma will have better idea after reading it.

Cheers

1 very obvious difference for me is that, one day if you upgrade to ff, EFS cannot be used anymore but tokina one can still be used... however you may argue that in ff, this range is lesser usage... well, you are right too...

3rd party lens is 3rd party lens, so for me it is lesser quality in some aspect.

still too hard for me to draw a definite answer for you, what you need to do is try them out and immediately you know which you should buy...

I will go for Tokina as Nikon 10-24mm f3.5~ cost more

i've got the 10-20mm sigma F3.5... then you know my answer.. if you want can meet up and try it first.. the thing i don't like about my lens is the barrel distortion. and I've tried the Tokina 11-16mm too.. same thing with that... maybe you can try the canon lens for comparison.. the FF thing don't worry.. when you buy.. you have enough money to get another lens... lol

Tokina 11-16mm also no good?

not like no good.. the most wide angle lens got barrel distortion problem

i think this is common problem for ultra wide lenses... only the extent of distortion can apart the difference companies

Guys,wat is barrel distortion o0o..xixi..

means when i place you on the right or left of the screen from the camera, it will make you longer and sengek~~

yes, correct. a straight horizontal line will be not be straight...