Photozone Tokina 11-16 review

[LightRules]

Originally Posted by Dorman

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!

[Bubble]

so between canon 10-22 vs this one, tokina is a nod below?

[Dorman]

Yikes on the decentering issue.

[LightRules]

Originally Posted by Bubble

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.

[Dorman]

Originally Posted by LightRules

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?

[Bubble]

humm...i might give it a try then. btw, where did you bought your from? BH?

[Dorman]

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

[datadump]

Originally Posted by Dorman

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)

[Dorman]

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.

[datadump]

Originally Posted by Dorman

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

[LightRules]

Originally Posted by Dorman

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 ).

Originally Posted by Bubble

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.

Originally Posted by Dorman

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.

[Dorman]

Originally Posted by LightRules

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.

[Clovis]

Brad, I think you need to get a 5D. Your lens setup right now seems perfect with one.

[NorCalAl]

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?

[LightRules]

Originally Posted by NorCalAl

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.