Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Equipment Talk' section > Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #76
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
 
LightRules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,905
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorman View Post
Yes it seems just awesome. hopefully Lightrules will have some first hand experience for us soon.
First, sorry folks but no pictures currently. I have two copies and the better (i.e., nice!) one is going to Lloyd up in Canada. The copy I'm keeping is going in to Tokina service. It has a decentered element issue with the left side quite a bit blurrier than the right. This was discovered after I noticed a consistent pattern of this, even without looking at 100% crops.

Apart from this issue, the lens is certainly sharp even at f2.8. The center of the frame is superb. CA control is slightly better than the 12-24 and similar to its 16-50 sibling...just slightly below average. Colors and contrast are superb. Flare performance looks average to above average; I'd rate it better than the Sigma, just a nod below the 10-22.

I can't wait to get this puppy working right. It looks "prime-like" otherwise. Highly recommended...apart from decentering!
LightRules is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #77
Bubble
User is banned from forums
 
Bubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Yorba Linda , CA
Posts: 3,382
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

so between canon 10-22 vs this one, tokina is a nod below?
Bubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #78
Dorman
Goldmember
 
Dorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 4,661
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

Yikes on the decentering issue.
__________________

Dorman is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #79
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
 
LightRules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,905
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
so between canon 10-22 vs this one, tokina is a nod below?
IMHO, the Tokina is the better pure optic, all things equal. It is sharp. It is also a constant f2.8, so that makes it "special" in my book. But the Canon might be the better "landscape" lens in that it has better focal range, stopping down is expected, and the Canon has slightly better flare/CA performance.

I still think the Tokina is a "different animal" from all the other current UWAs, especially now after using it. I say this because I find myself primarily shooting it wide open as an UWA f2.8 prime whereas with my previous UWAs I rarely thought of them this way.

I don't know that the Tokina is "better" than the others; it is just very different. But if you want an f2.8 "6-prime-like-zoom" lens (11mm/12mm/13mm/14mm/15mm/16mm), it's in a class by itself. The colors and sharpness are top-class.
LightRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #80
Dorman
Goldmember
 
Dorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 4,661
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightRules View Post
IMHO, the Tokina is the better pure optic, all things equal. It is sharp. It is also a constant f2.8, so that makes it "special" in my book. But the Canon might be the better "landscape" lens in that it has better focal range, stopping down is expected, and the Canon has slightly better flare/CA performance.

I still think the Tokina is a "different animal" from all the other current UWAs, especially now after using it. I say this because I find myself primarily shooting it wide open as an UWA f2.8 prime whereas with my previous UWAs I rarely thought of them this way.

I don't know that the Tokina is "better" than the others; it is just very different. But if you want an f2.8 "6-prime-like-zoom" lens (11mm/12mm/13mm/14mm/15mm/16mm), it's in a class by itself. The colors and sharpness are top-class.
Just to flog a dead horse - when stopped down it still would produce very sharp and colorful landscapes?
__________________

Dorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #81
Bubble
User is banned from forums
 
Bubble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Yorba Linda , CA
Posts: 3,382
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

humm...i might give it a try then. btw, where did you bought your from? BH?
Bubble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #82
Dorman
Goldmember
 
Dorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 4,661
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

I am just about ready to give this a whirl. To do so I'll need to give up my 24-70. My brick is an excellent copy but I'd replace it with the Tokina and a Tamron. That would give me:
Tokina 11-16 F/2.8
Tamron 17-50 F/2.8
Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS

Giving up the brick won't be terribly easy, think the swap is worth it? Currently rocking 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L
__________________

Dorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #83
datadump
Senior Member
 
datadump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,931
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorman View Post
I am just about ready to give this a whirl. To do so I'll need to give up my 24-70. My brick is an excellent copy but I'd replace it with the Tokina and a Tamron. That would give me:
Tokina 11-16 F/2.8
Tamron 17-50 F/2.8
Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS

Giving up the brick won't be terribly easy, think the swap is worth it? Currently rocking 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L
you would give up a canon 24-70L for this wow. of your three i'd give up that 17-40L instead. its the slowest of the three.

the Tamron std range zoom, despite reviews, just doesnt meet canon L standards imo. i've owned the tamron and went back to a canon 24-105L. i cant see you enjoying the tamron more than the brick (and thats gonna probably be on your body the most since it is the most "walk-around" range)
datadump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #84
Dorman
Goldmember
 
Dorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 4,661
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

If I were going to rock the 24-70 + UWA it'd probably have to be the Canon as 16-24mm is quite the gap. I've owned the Tamron before, need to sleep on this a bit more.

FWIW the 17-40 has been hands down my favorite lens.
__________________

Dorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #85
datadump
Senior Member
 
datadump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,931
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorman View Post
If I were going to rock the 24-70 + UWA it'd probably have to be the Canon as 16-24mm is quite the gap. I've owned the Tamron before, need to sleep on this a bit more.

FWIW the 17-40 has been hands down my favorite lens.

its not that huge a gap... i shoot with primes more so i'm used to acutally physically moving around
datadump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #86
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
 
LightRules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,905
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorman View Post
Just to flog a dead horse - when stopped down it still would produce very sharp and colorful landscapes?
Undoubtedly. It's sharp from the get-go (i.e., f2.8 ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
humm...i might give it a try then. btw, where did you bought your from? BH?
17th St Photo. But B&H has it now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorman View Post
I am just about ready to give this a whirl. To do so I'll need to give up my 24-70. My brick is an excellent copy but I'd replace it with the Tokina and a Tamron. That would give me:
Tokina 11-16 F/2.8
Tamron 17-50 F/2.8
Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS

Giving up the brick won't be terribly easy, think the swap is worth it? Currently rocking 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L
That's a very nice 3-some. I would personally take it over the Brick for APS-C usage.
LightRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #87
Dorman
Goldmember
 
Dorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
Posts: 4,661
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightRules View Post
That's a very nice 3-some. I would personally take it over the Brick for APS-C usage.
Yes, I've owned the Tamron and the Canon 17-55, perhaps my Tammy was really good and my Canon mediocre, but I preferred the Tamron. I gotta sleep on this, letting a tack sharp brick go for these two... I just don't know.
__________________

Dorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th of May 2008 (Sun)   #88
Clovis
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 33
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

Brad, I think you need to get a 5D. Your lens setup right now seems perfect with one.
Clovis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th of May 2008 (Mon)   #89
NorCalAl
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Paradise, CA, USA
Posts: 966
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

LR - are the 12-24 and 11-16 much different? I know one is 2.8 and shorter, the other 4.0 and longer, but at the short end are they comparable? IQ and field of view-wise? Or are they very different lenses?
__________________
Gear List

Nikon, the dark adventure begins...
NorCalAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th of May 2008 (Mon)   #90
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
 
LightRules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,905
Default Re: Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalAl View Post
LR - are the 12-24 and 11-16 much different? I know one is 2.8 and shorter, the other 4.0 and longer, but at the short end are they comparable? IQ and field of view-wise? Or are they very different lenses?
Different lenses. Very different. If you're doing the usual "landscape" stuff with stopped down fstops and Cokin-Z/Lee filters, etcetera, the 12-24 (or other UWAs) will do you at least as good. But if you want an 11mm f2.8 / 12mm f2.8 / 13mm f2.8 / 14mm f2.8 / 15mm f2.8 / 16mm f2.8 prime(-zoom) lens, then the new 11-16 f2.8 is the one you want. It really is a different animal altogether. The fact of the matter is, there is currently no lens like it for APS-C bodies.
LightRules is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photozone Tokina 16-50 review (Nikon Mount) tuan209 Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 1 11th of June 2007 (Mon) 12:12
Photozone tests Tokina 16-50 Tee Why Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 0 8th of June 2007 (Fri) 01:50
Tokina 12-24 f/4, My Review formula4speed Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 5 10th of June 2005 (Fri) 00:28
Tokina 12-24 Pop Photo review Tapeman Canon EOS Digital Cameras 4 14th of March 2005 (Mon) 12:36


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.