Therefore, I have the first reviews and tests for EF-S 10-18 and waited as they were promising, now bought a. Also because the other STMs (40, 55-250), which I have, surprisingly good for the price and were also in absolute terms.
So I can the EF-S 10-18 primarily only compare with the Tokina. And I've found exactly what I was looking for: it is much easier, much smaller, much faster, safer and more inaudible in autofocus; sharper and above all by a mile. In the middle of much sharper, almost worlds; and while the Tokina significantly loses towards the edges, the Canon hardly loses at the corners, where it is again extremely much sharper than the Tokina.
Also another point: Closest focusing distance. I enjoy spending macro photos of insects and flowers with the EF 100 2.8 IS macro. But there are also beautiful effects, ranzugehen with an extreme wide-angle close. And that goes with the EF-S 10-18 very good, that you can get very close to the subject - much closer than the Tokina. And with super wide-angle every centimeter counts closer to the subject. In case you have then even such. B. at large flower in the foreground, a spacious, blurred, pleasant background. Although the Tokina has the higher light intensity, one would therefore think that Tokina makes the subject more from the background have, here seems the shorter minimum focusing distance of Canon to bring more. Whatever that may / be visually physically, it is at any rate as described in my view ...
Of course, I have compared the sharpness on the same theme, with the same aperture, the same ISO, same camera (600D) and of course the same focal lengths. I can think of the Canon on no disturbing vignetting. In the camera viewfinder and not even at monitor viewing.
The advantages of the Tokina (and thus the disadvantage of the Canon) I see only in the integrated luminosity of 2.8 and if someone attaches great importance to very heavy, solid workmanship. I think for not so detailed photos (flächigere motifs) or videos the Tokina is still very good. But except for the lower light intensity wins the Canon clearly and I am very satisfied with the purchase. The Tokina was then twice as expensive as the Canon today also no disadvantage to the Canon, I think.
Video I made with the 700D, a tracking shot through, time of day due to darker, apartment and out the windows. The lens is absolutely noiseless and provides smooth and sharp with no pumping, even in backlight or bad (little) light. It takes a moment to be focused on, but not forever. The hands-free camera movement is very quiet, I do not know whether it is the IS or at the short focal length and short design. I was too lazy even to test even with / without IS and compared with the Tokina
Since not yet exist many reviews, I decided to order as much as possible informing. You have to wait, of course, as the lens on a permanent behaves in mechanical quality (stability, sealed against dust, etc.). Also the effects of Image Stabilizer at photos I can currently say anything.
August 29, 14: Supplement to the CHIP Online test of STM lenses 55-250 and discussed here 10-18:
I feel (this month) strongly provoked by the CHIP tests. These stages the two STM lenses on the last places. CHIP claims to have moderate to poor resolution measured values. Not only contradicts the measurements of z. B. photo zone (and also other online reviews) blatantly (which I regard as a good photo zone side, but not "Pope" Photozone'm a believer). Above all, it totally contradicts the visual impression to monitor and includes prints (A4). The 55-250 I have not reviewed, but it possesses happy and know it thus: I stay energetic this: these two STMs are sharp and CHIP should test computer and not optics and as lately in idiotic way power tools - I ask, to excuse the outburst ... I basically do not care how CHIP rated - but here are potential prospects gefüht astray and possibly brought to the positive decision for the same good and very inexpensive optics. I had to yet again be going on!
