Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8

[jcw122]

I really doubt anyone has it, but if you do, please post some sample shots. Thanks.

[AngryCorgi]

There are some shot samples (Nikon D200) and a review up now on Photozone. Obviously, there will be some differences between it and the copies for EF mount, but this at least gives a starting point.

Here's the link to the review:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1650_28_nikon/index.htm

It seems by the review that the lens is a tad soft at 16mm @ f/2.8 on the edges, though it looks pretty decent by the time you get to f/4.

One thing to note, in looking at the samples, some of the shots look rather "muddy" all over. There is a comment in the review about a slight centering issue with the sample, so it might be playing into the odd results.

Enjoy!

[LightRules]

We need to see the Canon-mount/USA-release of this lens. That's where the money is for me.

[CountryBoy]

We need to see the Canon-mount/USA-release of this lens. That's where the money is for me.

I have a feeling you're going to make me regret getting the Tamron 17-50.

[jcw122]

Looking at those Nikon sample photos from Photozone...the Tokina is wonderfully sharp in the center but it gets yucky on the outer parts.

[ed rader]

Looking at those Nikon sample photos from Photozone...the Tokina is wonderfully sharp in the center but it gets yucky on the outer parts.

it'll be a "cracker" in EF mount. i can almost guarantee it ;) !

ed rader

[condyk]

I can see ya upgrading Ed lad ... you know you want to and you're willing to hammer and nail it to the front of that 5Drool to make it work for ya ;-)

[Tsmith]

Not looking that smurffy handling the CA on the wide end, at least with the Nikon mount.

[Tee Why]

Look at the barrel distortion at the 16mm and CA.
I hate CA!
I would not sacrifice optics for a better build and pay extra for it over the tammy.

[LightRules]

Look at the barrel distortion at the 16mm and CA.
I hate CA!
I would not sacrifice optics for a better build and pay extra for it over the tammy.

Too early, Tom. Too early to tell. Besides, some fine glass (e.g., 35L, 85f1.8, 100f2) have some pretty harsh CA and they are quite beloved nonetheless. But I still say the jury hasn't even convened.

[Tee Why]

CA is not an absolute deal breaker, but not when cheaper alternatives exist that are better optically with less distortion and less CA.

I think it's a good idea about waiting for the sharpness issue, but I think tokes have been consistent between nikon/canon mounts in terms of CA and distortion. I don't use normal zooms much so I wouldn't get the Toke b/c it's expensive anyway but I really think it's not worth it. But we can wait for the Canon mount version to see.

[LightRules]

CA is not an absolute deal breaker, but not when cheaper alternatives exist that are better optically with less distortion and less CA.

But that's the issue here: we don't know how it does "optically" quite yet. We know the Tokinas 12-24 and 100 Macro are excellent mechanically and optically, even with their CA numbers, yet they are solid lenses with quite the following.

I think it's a good idea about waiting for the sharpness issue, but I think tokes have been consistent between nikon/canon mounts in terms of CA and distortion. I don't use normal zooms much so I wouldn't get the Toke b/c it's expensive anyway but I really think it's not worth it. But we can wait for the Canon mount version to see

It is priced a little high, but they market their glass accordingly and for $650 (or thereabouts), generally you get what you pay for. So prima facie, I'm thinking it will be solid all-around. But we do need to wait for Canon-mount and see.


*****

[AngryCorgi]

It is priced a little high, but they market their glass accordingly and for $650 (or thereabouts), generally you get what you pay for. So prima facie, I'm thinking it will be solid all-around. But we do need to wait for Canon-mount and see.

Well.......no one should expect centering issues with a $650 lens. You could pay a $250 premium for IS and USM (i.e. 17-55 IS USM), and you'd whine and complain like a little girl if it had manufacturing faults. There is no excuse why any sample, regardless of mount, of a lens at this price point should exhibit serious mechanical/optical problems due to QC problems. I didn't get the impression from the article that photozone broke into Tokina and stole a pre-release test sample. I also do not believe anyone needs to wait for an EF sample or a US sample to comment on apparent manufacturing QC issues in tested Nikon samples. Furthermore, while CA may vary in amplitude between cameras/sensors, the general characteristic, for the most part, will not.

Focus accuracy or camera communication gripes should be the only real complaints held back for now.

[poah]

the current sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro is getting the best results in the mags i the UK at the moment along with the tamron particularly for price and optics.

[thedjo]

I got samples!!
It is already sold here in Japan.
I am impressed with the test shots by the way.. but after I tested 17-55 IS it is no comparison. canon is way better I think maybe because of the IS.

I will post as soon as I have the picture at home.

[AngryCorgi]

the current sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro is getting the best results in the mags i the UK at the moment along with the tamron particularly for price and optics.

I sure hope so! I broke down and ordered one last night! I got tired of looking at all the clean sharp wide-open samples on pbase and took the jump. I have owned a 17-50 tammy, and I absolutely hated how soft it was wide open. My copy may have been a poor one, but in the end it had to be take to f/5-f/5.6 to equal the sharpness of my old 17-40L @ f/4.

[LightRules]

Well.......no one should expect centering issues with a $650 lens. You could pay a $250 premium for IS and USM (i.e. 17-55 IS USM), and you'd whine and complain like a little girl if it had manufacturing faults. There is no excuse why any sample, regardless of mount, of a lens at this price point should exhibit serious mechanical/optical problems due to QC problems. I didn't get the impression from the article that photozone broke into Tokina and stole a pre-release test sample. I also do not believe anyone needs to wait for an EF sample or a US sample to comment on apparent manufacturing QC issues in tested Nikon samples. Furthermore, while CA may vary in amplitude between cameras/sensors, the general characteristic, for the most part, will not. Focus accuracy or camera communication gripes should be the only real complaints held back for now.

New around here? Do you think only Tokinas go back for adjustments and the like? :rolleyes: But I guess you're right, I've never heard of a $1000 L lens needing a fix. That just doesn't happen.

[DerekI]

Many people have it and post smaples from it .I
f you can type "Tokina" in Japanese , you would see many many samples there.

But I have no Japanese OS installed so I can not use the font now. Also you can see a good review on it at photozone.de

I asked Klaus about the CA issue and edge sharpeness of the Tokina compared to that of the Tamron , Klaus said the Tamron had the edge.

I think considering the higher price of Tokina , it should have been much better than that.

And in Asia , it 's been out for a while already like the Sigma OS , I am totally disappointed with them , and the size and weight make the Tokina really a different kind of lens than the Tamron .........

As I played around with it , I did not think it is more durable or solid than the tamron , but unnecessarily heavier and bulkier .....more like the size of the 17-55IS without IS.

Ithink people tend to confuse heavy with solid or durable or tough , and maybe a lot of people believe that the heavier lenses the more durable or long lasting they are .

But in real life use , the light weight and compact size of Tamron is very attractive , esp if you are into street photography , where you can not use a tripod or avoid getting hit .............

One more thing , I found this lens disappointing is that the design of zoom barrel and the lens extends a lot while zooming or focusing , I thought it would be like the 12-24 , which never change it length while zooming or focusing.

Any way , if you still like it , you should try a few samples at your local store and make sure to test its focus accuracy .

The lens I rented had horrible focusing accuracy(hunting a lot in low light ) but was quiet.

My Tamron is very noisy but very accurate and fast focusing even in low light.

I never wonder if there is also QC issue with Tamron?

I tried 7 Tamron 17-50 randomly selected at different local stores , non of them had any issues ..........while 3 Sigma 18-50 had serious focusing problem .

Since Tmaron is a much bigger company than Sigma or Tokina , they may have higher QC standard.

For me , there will be no Sigmas or Tokinas. I am done with them.

Hopefully, there will be 17-85 F4 mark 2 like my 17-85IS but with super UD element inside.

[Tee Why]

Well this is a bit off topic, but Hoya/Tokina is the largest lens maker and makes the lens for many companies from what I hear. Sigma is the largest independent lens company for slr's. Tamron is probably smaller than the other two companies.

I do agree that while Tokina's feel nicer than any other third party lenses, it's more that than just robustness. I've owned two tokes and two tammies and I can say that Tokes are bigger and heavier with nice felt lined hoods and a AF system with a distance scale window. They even have a nicer lens cap than Tamron's. To me, Tokinas feel like a prograde Nikon lens. Only thing missing is a USM like AF. All the new Toke's with the D/Dx, meaning made for dslr's, have had problems with more CA than their competitors, such as 12-24, 100mm macro, 50-135 f2.8, 10-17 (although it's a fisheye and really doesn't have a competitor). I hear Pentax versions have less CA, possibly due to different coating used by Pentax.

Tamron has taken a different approach with using new plastics, found in guns like glock for it's cheaper cost, lighter weight, and self lubricating property. However, I think their optics are superior to Tokes, looking at the likes of 11-18, 17-50, 28-75, 90 macro, 200-500. I'd say comparable to Canon L grade lenses.
Here is their page on how they make their lenses.
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/default_plc_technology.asp

[AngryCorgi]

New around here? Do you think only Tokinas go back for adjustments and the like? :rolleyes: But I guess you're right, I've never heard of a $1000 L lens needing a fix. That just doesn't happen.

Oh, I gotcha...

[Tee Why]

Klaus at Photozone has had two decentering issues with two version of the same lens while testing the 70-200mm f2.8L IS.

As far as I know there is no scientific numbers on defect rate for lenses among various makers so it's all anecdotal about which company has worse quality control.

Lastly, lets keep to the topic at hand and keep the personal comments off the posts here.

[LightRules]

but now that I know that you're one of the "wannabe socially elite" of the internet, I'll probably just remember your posts as the work of some jerk who needs attention. Seriously, grow up and act like an adult if you want others to treat you with respect...post count is not going to get any respect from me

No further comment :lol:

[AngryCorgi]

No further comment :lol:

You sure you're not done abstractly highlighting words in quotes?

:rolleyes:

[jcw122]

Enough with the arguments. Bottom line is we need sample pics from English speaking owners (to understand what they have to say), from Canon mount lenses.

[angryhampster]

Jojo I still wuv you.

[Tee Why]

Enough with the arguments. Bottom line is we need sample pics from English speaking owners (to understand what they have to say), from Canon mount lenses.

I can't find any available for sale online in the US. Does any member here have one? Or better yet, have one and another fast normal zoom???

[LightRules]

I can't find any available for sale online in the US. Does any member here have one? Or better yet, have one and another fast normal zoom???

Tom, I haven't seen any for sale here in the US. Trust me when I say I'm looking :lol: Ebay has a US seller who has them, but it's about $700 + S&H and I'm sure it's a gray market version.

I'm sure it's coming soon though... :D :lol: :evil:

AngryCorgi, I'm sorry for my statement that started all this ("New around here?"). I didn't mean for it to snowball into a ruckus. Please accept my apology.

And Steve, thanks for the l-o-v-e...I'm touched. :)

[Tee Why]

Shall we all hold hands and sing koombaya? :)

[jcw122]

I say we rain dance for them...

[Tee Why]

Why? You wanna see if that weather seal coating on the front element really works?

[AngryCorgi]

AngryCorgi, I'm sorry for my statement that started all this ("New around here?"). I didn't mean for it to snowball into a ruckus. Please accept my apology.

Apology totally accepted, as long as you accept my apology for the 10-11 rude things I said in response.

Seriously, I'm not trying to p*ss in anyone's wheaties. ;)

[goatee]

Seriously, I'm not trying to p*ss in anyone's wheaties. ;)

ewwwww, that's just nasty ;)

[LightRules]

Shall we all hold hands and sing koombaya? :)

Sure, but it'll have to wait til after I return from Disneyland. Boy I hope the 57 south isn't crazy. The new Nemo ride opens today. :D Ta-ta, folks.

[thedjo]

Here is to write tokina in Japanese トキナ
to write sample of the 16-50mm トキナ AT-X 165 PRO DXサンプル

I see a lot of CA as well, kind of like purple fringe, maybe blue, I'm not sure.

The only thing I don't like is improvement of 1 mm from the tamron, but the size and weight increases by around 30-40%.
The price also considerably more expensive.

[angryhampster]

someone really needs to email tokina with links to every one of these threads asking when the 16-50 will be released.

[Tsmith]

Here is to write tokina in Japanese トキナ
to write sample of the 16-50mm トキナ AT-X 165 PRO DXサンプル

I see a lot of CA as well, kind of like purple fringe, maybe blue, I'm not sure.

The only thing I don't like is improvement of 1 mm from the tamron, but the size and weight increases by around 30-40%.
The price also considerably more expensive.

I didn't quite get that, I suppose language barrier but where are the samples?

[thedjo]

you have to dug deeper then..
lol.
I can't read Japanese too well too. I'll try to get some links posted here.

[condyk]

All pointless mumbo-jumbo to me ... when the thing arrives, and several trusted people with gumption rather than a chip on their shoulder, test and comment then we will know. As is, this is all hot air and hot under the collar air and so hardly seems worth the effort :-) All I can say in defence of Tokina is I owned two: 20-35mm 2.8 and 12-24mm 4.0 and both superb in all respects. The former is an unknown gem IMO and the latter the number one bargain in wides (along with Sigma 15-30mm SH).

[goatee]

But Dave, given your recent evangelism / fetishism for your 24-105 L, I thought that meant you could no longer talk about non L (nevermind non-Canon) in such a favourable light. You might need to go back to Fixation to get that remedied (or even Canon - they're not far from you)

[condyk]

Eh Goat lad ... yer's drunk son :-) I'm on me second 24-105mm IS L and both peach so can't be critical. Still, my pictures (as pictures rather than the usual lens tests we get posted) are just as good or bad as they ever where; be it Sigmund, Tampax, Tonka or Canon brand used as weapon.

[goatee]

Ahoy there me heartie, I have a Sigbert, and of course a couple of Cancans, but don't have any Tampax or Talkies.

[mcmadkat]

Bah.... 3 pages of lens bashing and no pics, call this a sample thread? Its pathetic....

[pourmeaguinness]

I cancelled my order 2 months AFTER ordering it. Still no release date.

I wanted to add to my growing tokina collection. Oh well.

[mcmadkat]

Oh well.....

[Azzure_7]

Bump nobody has this thing?

[MillCreek]

Yes: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=385247

[AngryCorgi]

LR, I finally got around to reading your shootout with the 16-50 in it. I gotta say that I am not entirely shocked at it's CA performance, but I was very shocked that it was not a little sharper wide-open.

Thanks for posting it; your reviews are quite helpful! ;)

[LightRules]

LR, I finally got around to reading your shootout with the 16-50 in it. I gotta say that I am not entirely shocked at it's CA performance, but I was very shocked that it was not a little sharper wide-open.

Thanks for posting it; your reviews are quite helpful! ;)

AC, I haven't looked at that test in a while, but IIRC, I remember the Tokina 1650 being about the equal of the Tamron 1750 at f2.8.

Regardless, I liked the lens a lot. The build is lovely. But for the money I think the Tamron offers a little more overall.

[AngryCorgi]

I noticed some purple-fringing-ish glow that seemed to affect the lens wide-open at some focal lengths (24mm ad 30mm) and it hurts the apparent contrast performance of the lens. My CZ 50/1.4 acted a little like that in strong contrast areas. Oddly, it is not as apparent at 16mm and 50mm. At f/4 and smaller, the glow in your shots seems to disappear and it looks very sharp.

[sammieboy]

So I picked up this lens yesterday from B&H and so far am loving it.

I have gone out and tested his lens out in Manhattan and so far I am liking the results.

I made sure to take as many 16mm F2.8 shots to see if I would like it enough to keep this lens. So far so good. I was worried after reading the horrible reviews it got from the maybe 3 or 4 ppl that actually did any posting of it online.

I was debating on whether or not I should retur this and just go for the Canon 17-55, but on second thought, I'd rather just keep this and keep the extra 300 bucks for the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 fund lol. I mean the performance in low light is excellent on this lens and it owns the tammy in low light autofocus, another lens I was considering until I played with it at B&H and the focus was searching w/o finding anything. The only thing that the tokina is lacking is the IS and I doubt that the IS is worth an extra 300 bucks...

So I'll go ahead and finish this post by posting some examples with settings of ISO 200 16mm F2.8 and Av Mode... if you guys need more samples please let me know..... These photos were taken in RAW and the only pp I did was to adjust the exposure since LightRoom by default sets the exposure to a neutral state. Although these are not professional results by any means I just thought I'd share some since I didn't see any on this forum.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/2629385551_9ecf0903a9_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/2629963592_00ec41e1c8_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3188/2629099181_85537ca558_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3041/2629918782_fd4fb272aa_b.jpg

[LightRules]

It's a fine lens you've got here. Apart from the good imaging quality, you gotta love that tank-like build too. Enjoy.

[LightRules]

I felt like some of the reviews that it received didn't do it enough justice. I guess the lens is too new and most ppl would prefer to spend 200 bucks less to get the tammy. But for me personally, I felt that the better autofocus in lowlight was worth it. It's built like a tank and does well w/ focusing in lowlight... in fact I can't tell the diff between the tokina and my nifty fifty when it comes to fast focus in low light, but it could just be me =P

I agree with what you say. In terms of IQ, the Tamron is right there with the Tokina. They are comparable overall, with each lens having a slight edge here and there in different areas. But overall, very comparable. But the unmatched build with the 16mm wideness and the low light AF superiority, it can certainly be made the case that this is the better overall lens. However, the Tammy does cost a good bit less, and hence, is quite a deal in its own right. Enjoy.

[sammieboy]

More pics....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3006/2629325323_2305a971d8_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2631245034_c1a5851c74_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3184/2630436433_8308230afc_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/2630518713_aecc260b43_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2396/2630529921_8486156de9_b.jpg

[Jannie]

Wow, that looks like a keeper for sure, love the cab light.

[sammieboy]

I love this lens :-)

[pratman64]

Wish I had one.

[woolbr8stl]

I've been thinking of picking up this lens, mostly because of the quality and build of the 11-16 tokina I picked up.

thanks for posting something positive about this one :)

[saiminyaku]

tokina zooms still get to me. the 10-17mm 3.5/4.5 FE and the 11-16mm 2.8 were an absolute joy to use with a 1.6x crop.

this lens appears to be no different in the respect that it appeals to me, even in my minimalist state.

[GeneMan88]

sammieboy...

My 10D "vacation kit" is made up of nothing but Tokina Zooms... 12-24 f/4, 16-50 f/2.8, and 50-135 f/2.8 ... they are all well built lenses, that are great on crop cameras and are rather understated. There are those who have tried the 16-50 and found some issues with it, but it looks like you got yourself a good copy. This lens is on my 10D about 60% of the time... the 12-24 is my next most used lens.

Here's a shot of the sky just after the sun went below the horizon:

10D/Toke 16-50 f/2.8 @ 16mm, Av=f/8, Tv=1/125, ISO=200
http://geneman88.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p420029899-5.jpg
This was shot while on my cruise to the Mexican Riviera.

Glad to see that there is another Tokina fan out there.

[TheHoff]

Thanks for posting the street photography and sharing the trip. I like the bald point of view, especially. I've been considering a similar point of view series, maybe up a bit higher, about combovers.


ps. and I say this as a yank myself... America, please lose some weight, it is getting embarrassing now.

[Dorman]

Looks like a great copy - good sharpness, lovely contrast and saturation. Above all you have to love the Tokina build and feel! Enjoy!

[grego]

Nice stuff sammie. Your thread should replace this one (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=330731) in here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406). The other thread has like no sample images.

[In2Photos]

Nice stuff sammie. Your thread should replace this one (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=330731) in here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406). The other thread has like no sample images.
I merged the two threads so keep on sharing!

[Tee Why]

That shot with the police vehicles and B&H is funny.
Nice.
I think if Toke kept the price more in line with the Tamron, this lens would fly off the shelves.

[sammieboy]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/2653809101_eb404c7de0_b.jpg

[goatee]

probably, but you're doing such a good job :D.

[taxsux]

Lens so sharp! Nice. :)

[fritzd]

I just picked up this lens. I love it. =))

[shutterfiend]

Has anyone here compared the wide end of this lens with that of the Tamron's? It would be interesting to see if there's a marked difference.

[fritzd]

Here is my share. This is one of the reasons why I bought this lens. I love the lens although I still wish I bought the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 because I just want to go even wider. =))

For more info. hehe http://flickr.com/photos/fritzdiorico/2727784047/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/2727784047_73a7102af4.jpg

[cxtxlxn]

Can anyone tell me how fast and acurate is the AF in low light compared with...let's say canon 17-85 USM, or any USM lens?I am planning to use it for weddings and i am not sure if AF will help me as much as i am shooting very fast and sometimes even the USM is not enough :)Thank you.

[fritzd]

Has anyone tried this lens with a full frame or a 1.3x crop camera? Any info on vignetting?

[tiro40d]

@50mm ISO100 f/3.5 1/60

IIMG_2814.jpg (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=302667&stc=1&d=1220645814)

[marcusanton]

Can anyone tell me how fast and acurate is the AF in low light compared with...let's say canon 17-85 USM, or any USM lens?I am planning to use it for weddings and i am not sure if AF will help me as much as i am shooting very fast and sometimes even the USM is not enough :)Thank you.

Well, I used to own Canon 17-85USM and I must say that the AF was significantly faster on the Canon than on Tokina. Then again, Tokina is not USM/HSM.

I was shocked at first to find out that focusing was so sluggish (On Canon 350D), after upgrading to a 40D the issue subsided and right now I am content. Sure, the focusing should be faster but the other aspects of this lens outweighs the lack of focusing speed.

IQ is a lot better and the extra stops really help while shooting children especially indoors. The F4 and most often F5.6 on the Canon gave too pronounced depth of field - with Tokina, F2.8 at the indoor focusing distance is often too much, F3.5 does the trick.

http://picasaweb.google.com/mrcsanton/Family2008#5229626706068876770

[rjx]

Been researching the Tokina 16-50 2.8 and the Tokina 50-135 2.8

Here are some galleries I found while searching.

Tokina 16-50 2.8 (Canon)
http://flickr.com/photos/autech/tags/tokina1650mmf28/
http://flickr.com/photos/-eu/tags/tokina1650/
http://flickr.com/photos/-eu/tags/tokina1650f28/
http://flickr.com/photos/ecalero/tags/tokina165atxpro/

I also made a similar post for the Tokina 50-135 2.8

[rjx]

Searching around on flickr and found these. http://flickr.com/photos/salvo31/tags/1650/

40D
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/2862681219_36f3f27a6e_o_d.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2837424098_af4c31d8d3_o_d.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3089/2863037454_de8ff42cc2_o_d.jpg

http://flickr.com/photos/porsher/tags/1650/
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/2863901184_13974c1480_b_d.jpg

[lippstuh]

how does this compare to the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8?

been looking for a lens to go with my tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which i absolutely LOVE.

edit: i found this link (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nschaden/1332341897/), i was hoping for the tokina to outperform the tammy, but i guess not.

[Ben Howard]

Has anyone tried this lens with a full frame or a 1.3x crop camera? Any info on vignetting?

x2?

ths seems like it would be good for us 1d owners with the 1.3x crop

[Yevi]

any updates

[GeneMan88]

Taken during a recent trip to Hong Kong.

Taken with 10D/Tokie 16-50 f/2.8 combo at 16mm, Av=f/8, Tv=1/40, ISO=100
http://geneman88.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p82698716-5.jpg

10D/Tokie 16-50 f/2.8 combo at 16mm, Av=f/8, Tv=1/80, ISO=100
http://geneman88.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p70601107-5.jpg

[Yevi]

not bad, basically i am trying to make a decision whether to get this one, or save up for 24-70mm L lens

[GeneMan88]

not bad, basically i am trying to make a decision whether to get this one, or save up for 24-70mm L lens

Yevi...

If you look in my signature... you'll notice I own both, and would say that the 24-70 L is an excellent lens, well worth saving for. I also have Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8... another excellent lens to consider. My reason for getting and using the Tokina 16-50 had to do with the focal length, AND my need for a lighter kit for vacations. The Tammy 28-75 is lighter compared to the 24-70L, BUT I wanted wider on the wide end. With the Tokina, I can slim my kit down to only 2 zooms if needed (usually my tokie 16-50 & tokie 50-135)... if I want/need really wide on a trip, then swap out my 16-50 for the Tokie 12-24 f/4. I have traveled/vacationed with my 1D kit a couple of times... and got plenty of great photos, but it was quite heavy lugging it all around (and L lenses have a tendency to grab attention). My old 10D and some lighter weight lenses makes more sense in this situation.

On the same visit to Hong Kong, I took a day trip out to Macau and spent some time at a temple there... you can see some of my photos from that visit here:

http://geneman88.zenfolio.com/p923784179

The Tokie 16-50 has been a good lens for me, produces decent photos IMO. Good luck on your decision.

[Yevi]

Gene,

thanks for advice. basically i am trying to put together a travel kit.

me and my friends are going to backpack from Bangkok to Amsterdam this summer. just with carry on luggage.

I am definitely getting 11-16mm for outdoor scenic photography. another 2 lenses i wish to grab is 16-50, 24-70mm and maybe 70-200mm. to lighten the load i am waiting for T1i to come out, so i can use the SLR as a camcorder as well, which i think is going to be awesome. and XSI T1i bodies are very small and light and overall very portable. so extra weight does matter, so i think i am probably will go with 16-50mm, as you said not to attract much of attention.
I don't worry about islamic countries since generally thievery is not very common, but India and Thailand would be a different situation. lastly all the stuff is going to be insured

Yev

[Jumpcut]

Geneman, if you had to option of buying the 24-70L or the Tokina which would you go for? I am planning a new lens soon, I was thinking about the L but I like the build of my 11-16 Toki and the 17-50 would also fill that gap that the L would leave. Then there is the EFS 17-55 option. The only reason I would go there is for the IS which I'm not sure is necessary.

[GeneMan88]

Geneman, if you had to option of buying the 24-70L or the Tokina which would you go for? I am planning a new lens soon, I was thinking about the L but I like the build of my 11-16 Toki and the 17-50 would also fill that gap that the L would leave. Then there is the EFS 17-55 option. The only reason I would go there is for the IS which I'm not sure is necessary.

I have never used (and can't) the EF-S 17-55, so no comment on that lens.

I really love the 24-70L thus I would suggest getting one if you:

can afford it
willing to carry the weight
really like the focal length of this lens on a 1.6x crop camera


The last reason is why I only use the 24-70L on my 1D... on my 10D, the 24-70 doesn't seem wide enough on the wide end. IMO, the Tokie 16-50 is a better match with crop bodies... very useful focal length.

Having one of each of these lenses, I've fought the temptation to pixel-peep and compare them to one another... they are tools, and I use which ever "tool" fits the need at the time.

Best of luck on your decision...

[Yevi]

i would love to get 24-70mm, but i could get tokina 11-16mm and 16-50, for almost the same price. right now that's what i am going after

[GeneMan88]

Both of these photos were shot with 10D/Tokie 16-50 combo + circular polarizer...

With Mt Saint Helens in the background... at 28mm, Av=f/11, Tv=1/60, ISO=100
http://geneman88.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p177165128-5.jpg

With Mt. Hood in the distance... at 31mm, Av=f/8, Tv=1/250, ISO=100, Exp. Comp=-1
http://geneman88.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p483549044-5.jpg

I shot these photos at James Woodhill Park at Rocky Butte. It was a bright mid-afternoon sun, so I underexposed them a little... not perfect, but I wanted to ensure that the mountains were not lost in the clouds.

[Bula Matali]

Would love to see some pics from a Tokina 16-50 and a Canon 5D M2 combination.
Thanks in advance

[GeneMan88]

Would love to see some pics from a Tokina 16-50 and a Canon 5D M2 combination.
Thanks in advance

1Ds MkI/Tokie 16-50 f/2.8 combo at 16mm, Av=f/8, Tv=1/60s, ISO=200
http://geneman88.zenfolio.com/img/v6/p482791266-5.jpg

1Ds Mk/Tokie 16-50 f/2.8 combo at 50mm, Av=f/8, Tv=1/25s, ISO=200
http://geneman88.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p29114838-5.jpg

Safe to say, this lens is not made for FF bodies. I never thought of trying this... but your question made me curious. I guess I now know the answer.

[Bula Matali]

GeneMan,
Thanks.