Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8

[ilumo]

Originally Posted by bohdank

There just aren't many out there, yet, I think, and no "real" reviews. I need something faster than my 17-40 and was not going to wait till the reviews were in. The first snippets of personal reviews suggested it was worth looking at. I have little interest in the 16-35MKII since I do not feel I will be gaining enough IQ over the 17-40 although it is f2.8 and it's overpriced for what it offers, imo.

So, either the 16-28 works out or I will stick with my 17-40 and 24L.

Did you check out Ken Rockwells review? I remember him mentioning that the 16-28 is similar in performance to the 16-35 II... which isn't that encouraging. I thought it was much better.

[bohdank]

I'm not a fan of KR.

[thenextguy]

Get on the ball Canon, 14-24mm now!

[panm]

Originally Posted by ilumo

Did you check out Ken Rockwells review? I remember him mentioning that the 16-28 is similar in performance to the 16-35 II... which isn't that encouraging. I thought it was much better.

I have not tested a 16-35, but both copies of of the 16-28 I have tried are significantly better than the 17-40 I had in terms of sharpness at the wide end on a full frame.

My guess is that there is too much sample variation among all these lenses. So, if someone just tests one copy the review/comparison is worthless. Ideally, you want to order several copies and keep the best.

In general, I am quite impressed with the 16-28 and I will end up keeping a copy of it as a UWA zoom. I am sending my current copy to tokina to see if they can improve the edges a little bit. But, even if they can not do much about it, its still way better than the 17-40.

P.

[bigcountry]

it's a good lens. it is staying on my camera for most of the reception at weddings.

[agphotography]

Can you post some more samples? I guess what I'm really concerned with is if it has very high center sharpness and good corner sharpness (doesn't have to be mind-blowing, not for a UWA)

The 16-35L is good in the center, but not outstanding.

[agphotography]

Did some scouting around and I came across this site: http://ad.impress.co.jp/special/kenko1011/

Not sure if you have been there or not but they do have a bunch of samples posted w/ a 5DmkII

[bohdank]

Thanks.... Can't read Japanese (I assume Japanese) and I wish those images were larger. Can't tell anything from those tiny samples.

[RaKLeZ]

^^
But these are full res samples (5616×3744), just click on each picture to view larger image. The sharpness looks great in my opinion. Can't wait to get this lens...

Finally some serious UWA zoom for Canon's FF...

[bohdank]

Ah, ok.... I did click on one, earlier, and got a fairly small JPG. Depends on the viewer. Bigger now. Any sharpening applied to these ? That's why I hate "look how sharp these are" downsized web images. You almost never know what was done to them.

[gkanetkar]

Originally Posted by bohdank

Thanks.... Can't read Japanese (I assume Japanese) and I wish those images were larger. Can't tell anything from those tiny samples.

You can use 'Google chrome' browser. Translates it automatically from Japanese to English.

[agphotography]

That's one thing I'm going to miss about Chrome.... But they're being idiots and dropping support for h.264 so I'm back to Safari now.

[RaKLeZ]

Originally Posted by bohdank

The flare comment might be a deal breaker for me. I shoot a LOT of concerts and back lighting, in the frame, is often very strong.

Found this on German dslr forums.


http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread....631936&page=13

Not that bad...

[bohdank]

You can see a green flare spot in the foreground. I'll need to try it myself, under the conditions I will normally use it. I saw a series of shots that showed none, others that showed a rainbow effect and now this one.

I wish someone would do a reasonable comparison showing the IQ of this lens under different conditions. At this point, since I have one on order, I don't really care. I'll do my own

[ilumo]

just read rockwells review... he says that the nikon version is "sharper" than the 14-24... yet, the canon version is the "same" as the 16-35, which has pretty poor corners, and center sharpness is decent... I know that the nikon 14-24 destroys the canon 16-35, so what gives? I don't want this lens if its the same as the canon 16-35...