Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 11 Dec 2012 (Tuesday) 07:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Tokens 11-16 vs canon 10-22

 
AmosTFairchild
Member
Avatar
63 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Dec 15, 2012 23:30 |  #31

Anyone out there who hates their 11-16 can send it to me. I will give it a loving new home. lol.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Dec 16, 2012 02:24 |  #32

Bakewell wrote in post #15371286 (external link)
Certain people on this forum appear to have overflowing venom for the Tokina 11-16. Every time it's mentioned they express unadulterated hatred while continuing to keep it in their personal lens collection! Why bother to keep it if it's so despised?.

Because its the best lens for one particular job - wide field astro photography. This is for two reasons: the extra light-gathering due to f2.8 actually makes a big difference, and my light-pollution filter won't fit on the 10-22.

However, for just about every other use the 10-22 is better than the 11-16.

  • Having f2.8 rather than f3.5 makes little difference in terms of depth of field, so they're equal there.
  • I use them as lenses, not hockey pucks. So claimed differences in build quality are irrelevant.
  • MTF differences are minimal and within the margins of error, so they're equally sharp.
  • The extra Focal length range of the Canon is a big advantage.
  • Chromatic aberration is marginally better with the Canon.
  • But the big difference, what really makes me leave the Tokina at home if I'm outside in daylight, is the difference in flare handling. The Tokina is the worst lens I own as far as flare is concerned. The Canon is the best.

Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Dec 16, 2012 07:18 as a reply to  @ hollis_f's post |  #33
bannedPermanent ban

Sorry...to me it sounds like it boils down to, "Its not a Canon". And that's ok! But there is other quality glass being sold besides Canon and this is a great example.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Dec 16, 2012 07:54 |  #34

Bakewell wrote in post #15372519 (external link)
Sorry...to me it sounds like it boils down to, "Its not a Canon".

No. It boils down to this....

Tokina -

IMAGE: http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/UWA%20FlareTest-1.jpg


Canon -

IMAGE: http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/UWA%20FlareTest-2.jpg

Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Dec 16, 2012 07:55 |  #35

Bakewell wrote in post #15372519 (external link)
Sorry...to me it sounds like it boils down to, "Its not a Canon". And that's ok! But there is other quality glass being sold besides Canon and this is a great example.

For once, that is wrong. This is a case where one lens is better at some jobs, and the other is better at others.
The 10-22 being 1mm wider and 7mm longer isn't really about what brand the lens has on it. Nor is the fact that it has the best flare resistance among the crop UWA's.

And I'm not a Canon fanboy by any means. You will find plenty of threads with me defending 3rd party lenses, and I own several myself :)


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
viperbass
Member
89 posts
Joined Feb 2012
     
Dec 16, 2012 08:04 |  #36

I too am debating the Tokina 11-16 Vs. the Canon 10-22. I have a 60D with the 18-135 kit lens. I am going to Europe next year and want a slightly wider lens for indoor shots that may require a faster lens for low light conditions.

However the bulk of my photography interests are in outdoor landscapes where a fast lens isn't the highest priority. Since my kit lens is F3.5, am I safe to assume that the Canon f3-5/4.5 10-22mm lens would not give my any better low light performace than my kit 18-135?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Dec 16, 2012 08:45 |  #37
bannedPermanent ban

hollis_f wrote in post #15372589 (external link)
No. It boils down to this....

Tokina -

QUOTED IMAGE


Canon -

QUOTED IMAGE

You've shown this picture numerous times and yes I see issues in the Tokina image, as always. I also see the contrast/clarity and saturation jacked way up in the Tokina image. You're insinuating this is typical of this lens and I'm saying it's not. If people would care to see a fair representation of what this lens is capable of they can peruse the Lens Sample Archive on this forum.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Dec 16, 2012 09:26 |  #38

Bakewell wrote in post #15372681 (external link)
You've shown this picture numerous times and yes I see issues in the Tokina image, as always. I also see the contrast/clarity and saturation jacked way up in the Tokina image.

Neither image has had the stauration altered in LR and the clarity settings were identical for both. The Tokina did have a slightly higher contrast setting. 11-16 (external link) and 10-22 (external link) But post-processing differences couldn't account for the horrendous flare in the Tokina image. Flare that is totally absent in the Canon image.

I took those photos because I couldn't believe how bad the Tokina had performed on its first outing. I'd gone to our local wildfowl centre, hoping to get some wide-angle close-ups of the ducks and geese from unusual angles. After a couple of hours laying in a load of duck and goose poo I was really disappointed to find a large percentage of the images were useless. So I went home to do some tests. It only needed the one test to persuade me that I would be keeping the Canon.

Even where it excels, wide-field astro stuff, flare can cause problems. I thought I'd discovered some new green nebula when I first looked at these. Then I realised that the Moon was the culprit.

IMAGE: http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/MoonFlare.jpg

Bakewell wrote in post #15372681 (external link)
If people would care to see a fair representation of what this lens is capable of they can peruse the Lens Sample Archive on this forum.

Well, for a start people aren't going to post images ruined by flare in the lens sample forum. However, I agree that people should check the forum because they will find numerous examples of images with flare.

Or I can post several other images myself.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LevEye
Member
Avatar
173 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Oregon Coast
     
Dec 16, 2012 09:27 as a reply to  @ AmosTFairchild's post |  #39

I sold one of the very first photos i took with my new Tokina 11-16mm the first day i shot with it and almost paid for the lens so no complaints here. I do mostly artistic landscape shooting with it and shoot directly into the sun quite often and feel that when dealing with any lens and flare problems it's all in the composition anyways they all have it.

I love the build quality of the Tokina over the Canon and of course the price is great for what you get hands down. Also 2.8 for night sky photography is a big plus. It's a great artistic tool and makes my canon 60D come alive. Very very satisfied with my purchase. Here's a shot directly into the sun that all i had to do was compose the flare into it.

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8061/8278112086_fda8eb493a_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/45984738@N03/8​278112086/  (external link) Rays over yaquina-2 (external link) by Leveye (external link), on Flickr"]
(DUPLICATE IMAGE)
 (external link) Rays over yaquina-2 (external link) by Leveye, on Flickr (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Dec 16, 2012 11:10 |  #40
bannedPermanent ban

hollis_f wrote in post #15372820 (external link)
Neither image has had the stauration altered in LR and the clarity settings were identical for both.

I take you at your word. Given that fact, one has to assume that the muted, less vibrant Canon photo must be due to all the anti-glare lens coating applied by Canon. Apparently once one can learn to control the lens flare (like Chris has with his beautiful sunset pic), superior photos can be expected from the Tokina.

And thanks Chris for new contributions you offered in the Lens Sample Archive.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LevEye
Member
Avatar
173 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Oregon Coast
     
Dec 16, 2012 12:13 |  #41

Bakewell wrote in post #15373143 (external link)
I take you at your word. Given that fact, one has to assume that the muted, less vibrant Canon photo must be due to all the anti-glare lens coating applied by Canon. Apparently once one can learn to control the lens flare (like Chris has with his beautiful sunset pic), superior photos can be expected from the Tokina.

And thanks Chris for new contributions you offered in the Lens Sample Archive.

Many thanks Dave most welcome and i'd like to add also that this is the older version of this lens not the II with even more multi coatings so that would be even better to work with i suppose but it's also $200 more i think i'll stick to recomposing for now.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,202 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tokens 11-16 vs canon 10-22
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is qawsedrftg
1209 guests, 220 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.