Tokina 17mm AT-X Pro vs EF-S 18-55mm

[pcasciola]

I just did some tests of my Tokina 17mm AT-X Pro compared to the 18-55mm kit lens. I was surprised to see that the kit lens seems to have better sharpness and contrast, and the Tokina seems to be suffering from some CA problems. I wonder if I just got a bad one.

These are all 100% crops from the center of the frame, on a tripod with mirror lockup and a remote shutter release, ISO 100, RAW.

What do you think?

http://www.casciola.com/pics/tokina_vs_18-55.jpg

[cactusclay]

Wow, that's pretty interesting. I keep being surprised by that lens, even though most people don't like it.

[Hellashot]

Impressive indeed. There may not be a better cost to performance ratio for a Canon lens, except maybe the 50mm f1.8, which I don't have.

[Redbird_xo]

I think it shows clearly in your test that the kit lens is sharper! But wait, the ATX-Pro costs about 3 times more than the kit lens. How can the result come out like this? Are we missing something here? Hmm...

[drisley]

I think you either have a bad copy of the Tokina and/or a very good copy of the kit lens.
Actually, I say it must be a bad Tokina because the Tokina is known for having very good CA control. I know for a fact it's MUCH better than the kit lens in that respect. I used to get CA on the kit lens all the time.
I've owned both, and I have to say the kit lens is really a very good wide angle lens contrary to what some say.
But, in my experience, the Tokina is much better than the kit lens in every way. It's sharper, has better CA control, much better flare control, and better contrast.
Keep in mind though that wide angle lenses have a tendency to just not be as optically pleasing as normal focal lengths. There have been many posts in this forum and others where people have done tests comparing the 18-55mm lens and the very expensive Canon 17-40L lens in which there was very little difference in image quality between the two (and in some tests the kit lens showed to be optically superior).

[pcasciola]

Maybe you're right, Drisley. I'm guessing my Tokina is a little below average, and my kit lens is maybe a little above average. But I'm really starting to think the kit lens is underrated. Given how close they are in this case, and assuming a good Tokina would only be a hair better than a really good copy of the kit lens, I'm selling it and looking for something wider. Maybe either the 10-22 EF-S or a 14mm prime.

I have had the kit lens perform poorly in some situations though, so maybe it just happens to be good at the wide end.

I didn't do this test to praise the kit lens, but that's what it's turning out to be. I was hoping the Tokina would have blown away the kit lens and I could toss it once and for all.

Here are a couple of shots of the Tokina taken with the kit lens:

http://www.casciola.com/pics/tokina2.jpg

http://www.casciola.com/pics/tokina4.jpg

[drisley]

Haha, nice pictures!
I totally agree. The kit lens is definately underated at the wide end.
I really wish I still had a kit lens so I could do a comparison test with the Tokina.
I'm just going by memory, but I thought for sure the Tokina was better in sharpness.
I just remember when I had my DRebel I was testing for back/front focus with a chart, and I started testing with my primes, and finally I tested my kit lens. I remember looking at the LCD after each test to read the numbers from the chart and I couldn't believe how much less detail the chart showed with the kit lens compared to the 50,85, and 135mm primes. Now, when I take pictures with the Tokina, often I have a hard time telling the quality apart from the 50mm lens, especially if the image has been cropped. That's just what I have to do on. I do know that the Tokina is better in build, CA, and distortion (although only the CA/fringing had bothered me on my kit lens).
However, I notice there are stores that sell the USM version of the kit lens for only $199 CDN, which really makes it a great option. I would really like to see someone else perform a similar test with these 2 lenses.