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 03 Aug 2014 (Sunday) 02:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Tokina 16-28 2.8 AT-X Pro vs Canon 16-35 f4L IS

 
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,486 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Aug 03, 2014 02:55 |  #1

Is there a comparison between the current UWA sharpness king, the Tokina 16-28 2.8 ATX-Pro and the new Canon 16-35 f4L IS yet ?
If not I hope some websites do a picture comparison test soon.

The expensive 16-35 f4L IS seems reasonable sharp in the corners from f8, but not 'wow'.
So they should compare it with the Tokina 16-28 2.8 ATX-Pro to see if the price difference as the Tokina is/was the sharpest of all UWA zooms.

I know there is IS, it accepts filters and is less heavy, but i'm speaking pure optical now.

In past we all thought the new 16-35 f2.8L II was the bomb, but later we saw it wasn't sharper than the 17-40 f4L and many of us returned to the 17-40 f4 for half the price equally sharp pics.
When we pay double price we don't expect only double light, but for UWA's we expect sharper corners too.

I'm curious, as the Tokina is known to be optically as good as Nikon's world changing 14-24
http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tokina/16-28mm.htm (external link)


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid + Speedlite Flash bender
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
raptor3x
Senior Member
Avatar
728 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Rutland, VT
     
Aug 03, 2014 08:06 |  #2

Here you go. (external link)


Bodies: X-T1, E-M1ii, G9 Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 45 1.2, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, PL 200 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
golden1245
Member
169 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Bay Area, California and Charlotte, NC
     
Aug 27, 2014 10:28 |  #3

http://crashcoursephot​ography.com/tokina-16-28mm-lens-review/ (external link)

Hope this may help with your decision, there are alot of real life example photos instead of just shooting graphs :)


http://www.crashcourse​photography.com (external link)
Check out my equipment review and how-to articles on this site :)
http://www.ollyyung.co​m (external link)
Personal work!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Abu ­ Mahendra
Senior Member
368 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
Aug 27, 2014 11:56 |  #4
bannedPermanent ban

UWA Tokinas are flare and LoCA (purple fringing) monsters. The 16-28 is no exception.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,486 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Aug 27, 2014 12:45 |  #5

Well i'd had some flare in past (due to the bold lensform) in certain circumstances but I learned to keep it under control, flare is a detail seen the price & perfect sharpness.
Meanwhile I sold the Tokina 16-28 for the light & compact Tokina 17 f3.5 ATX-Pro.

This lens has no flare but has a bit of CA in certain circumstances, that's the only negative. CA is correctable, but unsharp corners of the 16-35 II are not (and the Tokina is 1/3rd of the price!).
With this Tokina 17 3.5 prime I have to go to f11 for everything sharp, somethimes I miss the 16-28 2.8 as this one was sharp from f8. F11 takes more time to take 3 hdrs on phototrip.

So the new 16-35 f4L IS is perfectly sharp now corner to corner, the best UWA ever made ? The only thing that prevents me buying is the ratio price/f4, for this price they could have delivered an f2.8.

Abu Mahendra wrote in post #17120881 (external link)
UWA Tokinas are flare and LoCA (purple fringing) monsters. The 16-28 is no exception.


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid + Speedlite Flash bender
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Abu ­ Mahendra
Senior Member
368 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
Aug 27, 2014 13:04 as a reply to  @ CanonYouCan's post |  #6
bannedPermanent ban

Check out the second to last post on this thread:
http://www.dpreview.co​m/forums/thread/370750​4?page=2 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chantu
Senior Member
904 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Silicon Valley
     
Aug 27, 2014 14:00 |  #7

If this is any help, you may want to rent Tokina. I rented it for a week. The IQ was great, but I found it (for lack of a better term) "massively bulbous fisheye without the fish. I eventually settled on Canon's little brother, the 17-40mm (the IS version wasn't available at the time).


Canon 5D mk3, 7D mk2, 7D, 17-40L, Canon 85mm f1.8, Canon 70-200mm IS, Canon 17-55mm, Sigma 17-50 OS, Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 24-70VC 580ex flash (x3), 550ex, Yonguo 622C triggers, Fuji XE-1, 18-55mm Flickr (external link)Feedbacks of Items Sold/Bought *

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canadiantowman
Member
37 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
     
Aug 27, 2014 16:02 |  #8

Here's another one.

http://youtu.be/-jn-YMuhuB0 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
canadiantowman
Member
37 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Toronto,Ontario,Canada
     
Aug 27, 2014 16:07 |  #9

Sorry here's the right video.

http://youtu.be/tT4vQZ​ckk7Q (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jkdjedi
Senior Member
Avatar
341 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jun 2013
Location: California
     
Aug 27, 2014 16:44 as a reply to  @ canadiantowman's post |  #10

I have the Tokina and the pics are super sharp after a little post processing, I just don't like the weight of the beast. Contemplating going 17-40 or the new 16-35 f4L IS.


http://www.fernandezim​ages.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 27, 2014 17:17 |  #11

They both seem about equal optically. I think if you don't need weather sealing or IS or ability to add filters or... Tokina is a great choice.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
raptor3x
Senior Member
Avatar
728 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Rutland, VT
     
Aug 27, 2014 17:49 |  #12

frugivore wrote in post #17121471 (external link)
They both seem about equal optically. I think if you don't need weather sealing or IS or ability to add filters or... Tokina is a great choice.

I moved from the Tokina to the new Canon as soon as it was released and at f/8 the Canon is a bit sharper in the corners but not a huge difference. The real reason to switch to the Canon are that it's significantly lighter, fits much better in camera bags, is weather sealed, takes filters, has much much better AF, much better flare resistance, almost no CA, and of course the IS. Sharpness is not hugely different between the two.


Bodies: X-T1, E-M1ii, G9 Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 45 1.2, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, PL 200 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChuckingFluff
Goldmember
Avatar
1,391 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Canada Eh!
     
Aug 28, 2014 14:52 |  #13

I love the weight of the Tokina 16-28 and I love the sharpness. I've owned a lot of Canon L glass and this has to be my favorite toy right now. I like the lens flare and for the most part if it's coming from the side a small piece of paper or even using my hat I can block the flare. It's not a deal breaker at all for me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
madhatter04
Goldmember
1,930 posts
Likes: 51
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Southern California
     
Aug 28, 2014 15:44 |  #14

I love my Tokina. I really do. However, the flare issue REALLY sucks. Ultimately. I want to cry. Any night shot I take with it suffers from terrible flare. Every street lamp is surrounded by a rainbow ring. I'm considering putting it up for sale or picking up something else.


Designer // Art Director // Photographer
www.alexanderfitch.com (external link) | AlexFitchPhoto on Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2ndviolinman
Senior Member
345 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2011
     
Aug 28, 2014 16:57 |  #15

I owned the Canon 17-40, I rented the Tokina 16-28, I own the Canon 16-35/4L and the Tokina 17/3.5 Aspherical. I was going to buy the Tokina zoom. The IQ is very good, a little CA but nothing major, low distortion, but then I took a few night shots w/city lights and the rainbow flare was out to chow. I passed after I had already arranged purchase of the copy I rented.

I really like the 17/3.5 Tokina except that in some circumstances the CA is basically uncorrectable. There was one instance where I had to resort to desaturating one shade of green, and as the CA disappeared, so did one species of tree all around the lake I had photographed. It is sharper than the 17-40 was at 17, but with that one strong caveat. I still have if for my smallest lightest kit, but...

I love the new 16-35/4L. I sold the 17-40 as soon as I saw the Canon MTF charts on faith that it would measure up, and I have not been disappointed, and almost no CA. Flare is very well controlled. If I shot architecture I would want less distortion, and I might chose something else or in addition, but for what I do, used with care, it is just right.


David
5Dc, 5Dii, Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, 40/2.8 Pancake, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.0L, 200/2.8L, converted 35mm TS, Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, 70/2.8 Macro, Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, Zeiss Contax 28/2.8, 50/1.7 & 85/2.8, Jena 135/3.5, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO, Canon 28-135.

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

8,740 views & 0 likes for this thread
Tokina 16-28 2.8 AT-X Pro vs Canon 16-35 f4L IS
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 vttnguyen
952 guests, 320 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.