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 19 Mar 2013 (Tuesday) 17:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which of these Tokina 11-16mm is the better Lens

 
this thread is locked
morph2_7
Goldmember
1,112 posts
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Los Angeles
     
Mar 20, 2013 14:21 |  #16

No problem.




  
  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: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 20, 2013 17:16 |  #17

Bakewell wrote in post #15736524 (external link)
You're right, I apologize...I was referring to earlier negative posts.

You misspelt 'factual'.


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
     
Mar 20, 2013 19:28 |  #18
bannedPermanent ban

hollis_f wrote in post #15737175 (external link)
You misspelt 'factual'.

In retrospect I should have said..."Your right, I apologize...I was referring to earlier posts representing confirmation bias about this lens." But then again, that represents about 90% of what's on this forum and people just continue on. Kinda like politics and religion.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 34
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Mar 20, 2013 20:45 |  #19

Bakewell wrote in post #15737648 (external link)
In retrospect I should have said..."Your right, I apologize...I was referring to earlier posts representing confirmation bias about this lens." But then again, that represents about 90% of what's on this forum and people just continue on. Kinda like politics and religion.

You really do have a thing for ignoring any evidence that contradicts your views, don't you?

Ah well.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Mar 20, 2013 20:50 |  #20
bannedPermanent ban

Sirrith wrote in post #15737874 (external link)
You really do have a thing for ignoring any evidence that contradicts your views, don't you?

Ah well.

Confusion abounds...


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MPCman
Senior Member
858 posts
Likes: 22
Joined May 2008
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
     
Mar 21, 2013 01:22 |  #21

I see post with a negative tone from at least two people. Don't know which one to report to the admins. Both are boring as hell! Get over your argument! It's just internets.


7D, EOS-M, 100-400 L, 15-85, Tokina 11-16 2.8, EF-M 11-22, 55-200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Mar 21, 2013 09:50 |  #22
bannedPermanent ban

MPCman wrote in post #15738517 (external link)
I see post with a negative tone from at least two people. Don't know which one to report to the admins. Both are boring as hell! Get over your argument! It's just internets.

Sorry, but I'm still confused. Is that a "YEA" or a "NAY" on the new 11-16?


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,418 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 336
Joined Sep 2011
     
Mar 21, 2013 13:49 |  #23

Bakewell wrote in post #15733725 (external link)
The new lens has improved coatings to reduce/eliminate virtually all perceived flare issues

hollis_f wrote in post #15735127 (external link)
Really? Your evidence for this is....?

OK So the new coatings are factual. The effectiveness of those coatings is the part up for debate. I would really like to see a 3-way comparison between the 10-22 and the two 11-16's simular to the one you did with the version 1. If you or anyone else knows of such a comparison, let me know.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 21, 2013 14:06 |  #24

FEChariot wrote in post #15740131 (external link)
OK So the new coatings are factual. The effectiveness of those coatings is the part up for debate. I would really like to see a 3-way comparison between the 10-22 and the two 11-16's simular to the one you did with the version 1. If you or anyone else knows of such a comparison, let me know.

Well, Sirrith posted a couple of links in post #5.

I'm really upset that they've not fixed the flare problems. I would love nothing more than to be able to sell my 11-16 v1 and my 10-22 and replace them both with an 11-16 v2.


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
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,418 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 336
Joined Sep 2011
     
Mar 21, 2013 14:18 |  #25

hollis_f wrote in post #15740188 (external link)
Well, Sirrith posted a couple of links in post #5.

I'm really upset that they've not fixed the flare problems. I would love nothing more than to be able to sell my 11-16 v1 and my 10-22 and replace them both with an 11-16 v2.

Yes based on those, it would seem the improvment isn't as big of an improvment as most would expect, but it would still be nice to see a head to head.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Mar 21, 2013 14:49 as a reply to  @ FEChariot's post |  #26
bannedPermanent ban

Anybody can make a lens flare...base your decision on what people who bought the lens are saying about it...the numerous reviews on Amazon and B&H by people who actually shelled our hard earned dollars for the lens. For the most part they love it.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Mar 21, 2013 17:14 |  #27

Bakewell wrote in post #15740340 (external link)
Anybody can make a lens flare...base your decision on what people who bought the lens are saying about it...the numerous reviews on Amazon and B&H by people who actually shelled our hard earned dollars for the lens. For the most part they love it.

The problem with these kind of reviews is you really have no idea (for most of them) how critical they are about such things as flare. Reputable reviews are more reliable. KR (external link) was not impressed with the improvement (scroll down for the paragraph on flare with a picture), but Camera Stuff Review saw improvement (external link). (I have no idea who these people are, but at least they do have flare examples for both the I and II version. Don't get too excited; their examples are not exactly typical use. A direct shot of a halogen shop light :rolleyes:). Here is their review of the first version (external link).

There really are very few reviews of the II lens that I can find.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
magoosmc
Senior Member
Avatar
980 posts
Gallery: 80 photos
Likes: 479
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Keuka Lake NY
     
Mar 21, 2013 19:04 |  #28

I have never used the Canon or the Sigma, but I bought the "newer" version of the Tokina. I have used it on both a 7d and a T31. I like this lens - very sharp and performs well in low light. It does have a tendency to flare quite a bit, more so than any of my other lenses. Once you get the hang of it you can avoid the problem. Hopes this helps.


https://www.flickr.com​/photos/22055591@N05/a​lbums (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvrg35
Member
190 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Mar 22, 2013 13:29 |  #29

Bakewell wrote in post #15740340 (external link)
Anybody can make a lens flare...base your decision on what people who bought the lens are saying about it...the numerous reviews on Amazon and B&H by people who actually shelled our hard earned dollars for the lens. For the most part they love it.

Get over it, the 11-16mm is well documented to be MORE prone to flaring than other UWA in the market. Nobody is saying it is a bad lens...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Mar 22, 2013 14:14 |  #30
bannedPermanent ban

silvrg35 wrote in post #15743714 (external link)
Get over it, the 11-16mm is well documented to be MORE prone to flaring than other UWA in the market. Nobody is saying it is a bad lens...

my new favorite phrase..."Confirmation bias" going on here...


Dave

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

4,672 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which of these Tokina 11-16mm is the better Lens
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 Chris_71
718 guests, 371 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.