Tokina 16-28 f2.8 v Canon 16-35 f2.8

[RJD]

I have decided to venture into the world of full frame and get myself a Canon 6D after having a play with one. I am particularly interested in the 6D's handling of noise in low light/ night shots. Once I get that, the next purchase will be a wide lens for it. I would prefer it to be a fast lens and at this stage I'm leaning towards the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f2.8 Pro FX lens, based on reviews and on price. I was just wondering if anyone has had any experience with this lens and what their thoughts are on it? I would also be very interested in the same from anyone with a Canon EF 16-35 f2.8L lens and whether or not they believe it is worth the extra money. The reviews I have read are fairly split on this lens.

Any comments or advice would be much appreciated, thanks.

[arthurking83]

Not being a Canon person .. I the first thought that popped into my head was the question .. do you use filters of any type? ... Or do you prefer the digital filter and/or processing methodology?

Andrew(I@M) has the Tokina 16-28, and from what I've seen it's mighty impressive.
I don't think that it's ability and quality should be in question.

It's just that it has a massive front element, and no filter threads .. hence can't take filters.*

* possibly could if you found some addon contraption, that may or may not be available for purchase .. or manufactured something to suit.


Also, are you referring to the version 1 of the C 16-35/2.8, or the II series lens?
I think they are different, series II appears to be better in terms of overall IQ.

Looking at TDP and PZ's tests .. technically the Tokina is slightly better, in terms of overall image quality .. but the two are so close in how they create an image, it'd be impossible to determine which lens took which image.

Have to say too tho, the Canon 16-35/4 IS seems to be the overall winner here tho!(apologies for the spanner in the works too)
If it were for landscapes .. I'd say probably the best choice. If it's also for low light wide field imaging(eg. starry nights .. or party events) then of course the slower aperture is a handicap.

[I @ M]

I can offer my views on the Tokina and they are mostly all positive.

Extremely small amount of barrel distortion that is easily corrected in software, very sharp in the centre ranging to good sharpness at the borders at all apertures, handles colours very well with good levels of saturation and contrast and a bargain in terms of price compared to OEM lenses at similar focal lengths.

The negatives are as Arthur mentioned with the lack of availability of filter use without buying a fairly expensive add on filter system and a ( possible negative ) that 16mm may not be as wide as you ultimately want in which case you will need to look at the up coming Canon ultra wide or something like the Sigma 12 -24 but that also goes to a slower maximum aperture.

[Analog6]

I had the 16-35 MkII for a few years and it is a superb lens. I wish I could afford a replacement. If you can afford the extra I would go for the Canon.

[RJD]

Thank you all for your input, all the info and experience I can draw from is very much appreciated.

Arthur, the issue with filters is not a deal breaker for me, I'm more concerned with the quality of the lens and want to get a lens I will be happy with (and if it happens to be a less expensive one, all the better) but I will definitely be using it for low light situations and night shots, for this reason I have ruled out the f4 lenses even though they are really great lenses and there are more to choose from. Also, it would be the II series I would get, thank you.

Andrew, thank you for sharing your experience of the Tokina. Hearing first hand always adds weight to reviews I have read that say pretty much the same thing. Thanks also for the suggestion of waiting for the new Canon - I had a quick google and I think it might be priced a bit high for me, however that search also turned up information on one that Tamron are working on as well, although that will be a 15-30 rather than an 11-24. Maybe I'll get lucky and win x-lotto while I'm waiting :lol2:

Analog, I also appreciate hearing what you thought of the Canon. I have read there can be a bit of softness in the centre, did you ever find this an issue?

[I @ M]

I don't remember seeing the press releases of the Tamron and given the way their newer lenses are performing the 15-30 should be very interesting for many, especially those who want to hand hold with low shutter speeds.

I just thought that I would post a few random snaps taken with the Tokina as an idea of how it works. This year I will be using the lens a lot more as I am starting a small project with it next week utilising the available distortion rather than keeping lines straight and perspectives true.

It is boring having straight lines in some shots. :D
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9582534/bt3.JPG

Likewise stopping down is not always better. :D
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9582534/Tokina_20110319_104908edit.JPG

But when you want pretty true lines and depth of field you can have it easily.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9582534/Tokina_20110319_112448.JPG

[RJD]

Thank you! It's really great to see some examples of what it can do. I have a couple of Tamrons that I'm really happy with, one is a 24-70 f2.8 which I think will be what I use until I've made up my mind on a wider lens.

[Analog6]

Never had any problems personally. Here's a couple of shots with it, links to red Bubble. The Old jetty one is so sharp in the centre you can clearly see through the old bolt holes in the posts at full res. These are also on my Flickr page, they may be able to be viewed larger there.

Blue dawn (http://www.redbubble.com/people/analog6/works/5412570-blue-dawn-kinloch-nz?c=58030-fine-art-collection)
Old jetty (http://www.redbubble.com/people/analog6/works/5412594-old-jetty-remains-kinloch-nz?c=58030-fine-art-collection)



Thank you all for your input, all the info and experience I can draw from is very much appreciated.

Arthur, the issue with filters is not a deal breaker for me, I'm more concerned with the quality of the lens and want to get a lens I will be happy with (and if it happens to be a less expensive one, all the better) but I will definitely be using it for low light situations and night shots, for this reason I have ruled out the f4 lenses even though they are really great lenses and there are more to choose from. Also, it would be the II series I would get, thank you.

Andrew, thank you for sharing your experience of the Tokina. Hearing first hand always adds weight to reviews I have read that say pretty much the same thing. Thanks also for the suggestion of waiting for the new Canon - I had a quick google and I think it might be priced a bit high for me, however that search also turned up information on one that Tamron are working on as well, although that will be a 15-30 rather than an 11-24. Maybe I'll get lucky and win x-lotto while I'm waiting :lol2:

Analog, I also appreciate hearing what you thought of the Canon. I have read there can be a bit of softness in the centre, did you ever find this an issue?

[RJD]

Thanks Analog, beautiful shots! There's certainly no evidence of softness there. At my skill level, I probably don't need to worry.

[rookie]

Something else to think about
Good news - Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 only $699 at JB ($800+ at eglobal)

[RJD]

Thanks rookie, but that lens is for crop sensors, not full frame.

[rookie]

Sorry bit of a rookie mistake lol

[RJD]

lol, no probs. This is what is so frustrating, I can easily get what I want (and already have) for a crop but it seems there are less options at the moment in fast wide angle lenses for a full frame.

[basketballfreak6]

not sure if i am too late, but the tokina has a bulbous front element which means you can't use filters correct? to me personally that is a massive deal breaker as i personally can not live without my collection of filters

i personally used to have a tokina 11-16 2.8 on a cropper and while it is a sharp lens and got me plenty of great images it used to drive me crazy with how flare prone it is, not to mention it's very ugly flare, not sure if the same problem exists with the 16-28

what is your primary use for the UWA? is it landscapes? if it is do you feel you really need the 2.8? i say that because you should have a look at the 16-35 f4 IS which is phenomenal in terms of sharpness across the frame (it is easily canon's sharpest UWA zoom right now), has that excellent contrast/clean look that's typical of canon's new L zooms and it is very flare resistant, before that i was using the 17-40L as i didn't need the 2.8 and i rather use the money on filters

here are a couple with the 16-35 f4 IS and more are on my flickr page

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7476/16159351202_169ab73cf9_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qBWU8u)First Sunrise of 2015 (https://flic.kr/p/qBWU8u) by basketballfreak6 (https://www.flickr.com/people/61412648@N02/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7556/15899892770_2e87c0a447_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qe27bf)on this beautiful summer afternoon... (https://flic.kr/p/qe27bf) by basketballfreak6 (https://www.flickr.com/people/61412648@N02/), on Flickr

[wideangle]

Do consider the Canon 16-35mm F4L IS, its a steller performing lens, excellent build and from reviews its apparently sharper than the 2.8 version. You also save $$ with the F4 version.

[RJD]

Thank you, but the main use for the lens will be night shots which is why I am only looking at faster lenses.

[RJD]

And we have a release date for the new Tamron! Limited quantities to start with, but at least it's going to be out.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3293448331/tamron-announces-sp-15-30mm-f-2-8-release-date-and-1200-price-point