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 10 Jan 2016 (Sunday) 05:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Wide lens full frame: Canon 17-40L F4 vs Tokina 16-28 2.8

 
roeibi
Hatchling
3 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2016
     
Jan 10, 2016 05:05 |  #1

which you think is better?
i heared that the bokeh on wide camera is good even with F4 and the 2.8 isnt realy noticeable
on the other hand
i also heared you cant get lens flares with 17-40 and that the tokina is shaper

what do you think?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Vertigo1
Senior Member
310 posts
Likes: 49
Joined Sep 2006
     
Jan 10, 2016 08:16 |  #2

I know nothing of the Tokina, although I know their 11-16 is very highly regarded.

Not owned nor used the Canon but, from what I hear/read, it's a very average lens considering it's an L.


Canon 5D3/6D | EF 16-35 f/4L IS | EF 24-70 f/2.8L II | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II | EF 35 f/1.4L II | EF 50 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,540 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 614
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 10, 2016 08:24 |  #3

I don't really have any experience with the Tokina, but I've used the Canon 17-40 as well as the Canon 16-35 II.

The 17-40 is pretty good with flare. It does not have any susceptibility to veiling flare but it will make some ghosts if you put the sun directly in the frame. I wouldn't say it is exceptionally good or bad in this regard....just kind of typical. Nearly all of my lenses will make ghosts with the exception of my 50L which seems to be the best lens against flare I've ever used.

Bokeh is a characteristic of the lens design, and I've never really looked at the blur aesthetics of these lenses in all that much detail. It's not that common to have a significantly blurred background with such wide / slow lenses in the first place so you don't see it all that often.

As for the amount of blur....on the one hand it isn't all that often you will blur a background a huge amount when shooting ultra wide. But if the subject is close and the background is far then you will get some. And of course if you are at the long end of these lenses you get more situations like that. So when you do have thinner DOF......a stop is a stop. Here's a couple at f/2.8....but neither are at the widest end of the range.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jan 10, 2016 08:40 |  #4
bannedPermanent ban

I have the 17-40 and have no complaints about it. The 28-40 range is more important to me than f/2.8. I have primes, if I need speed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,488 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Post edited over 5 years ago by CanonYouCan. (4 edits in all)
     
Jan 10, 2016 08:59 |  #5

The Tokina is the best

The big advantage of the Tokina is :
-Razorsharp corner-corner as the world changing Nikon 14-24 (see the Digtal Picture review)
-f2.8 (you use it on f6.3-f8 mostly, but f2.8 is still a big advantage for faster focussing and be able to focus in dark circumstances)
-1mm extra (every mm counts for an uwa)
-built quality like a tank with built in lenshood
-f2.8 recommended if you want to try starheavens in future

The 3 disadvantages of the Tokina are :
-The weight (it fell on the ground once) but the lenshood saved the lens, although it was plastic, so I had to glue the hood :)
-Flare (due to the bulb lensform) but if you get to know the lens, you start looking to avoid flare and it works
-No filters (for me not a problem, but maybe for others)

But image quality was most important for me, so I went for the Tokina.

I had the 17-40 also, most are satisfied for the price, but I found there was too much distortion + corners unsharp.
The 16-35 2.8 I was too unsharp in general and the II was not worth the money as the corners of the 16-35 f4L IS are sharpest.

As i'm a prime-freak and the heavy Tokina fell once on the ground, I bought the lighter Tokina 17 f3.5 prime (out of production, but found it on Ebay), superlight,compact and no flare.
Today I have the Canon 16-35 f4L IS (best one out there).


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | Sigma 85 1.4 Art | 70-200 2.8L II
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
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,917 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2385
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 5 years ago by Left Handed Brisket. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 10, 2016 12:38 |  #6

Very happy with the Tokina. Bought it for corner to corner sharpness, and it has delivered. The outer element moves, and does so backward from what you might expect. So this means it is most susceptible to flare (without the sun in the frame) when at 16mm. I have not had a problem with flare, the few times the sun was just out of the frame, and I was shooting at 16-20 mm, I just put my hand out to block it.

The lens sample thread has some good examples.

Oh yeah, the lens is practically distortion free fron 20-28, that is another big reason I bought it. Under 20 distortion is very well controlled.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vertigo1
Senior Member
310 posts
Likes: 49
Joined Sep 2006
     
Jan 10, 2016 12:41 |  #7

I think the front element moves on pretty much every ultra-wide lens out there, although there may be odd exceptions.


Canon 5D3/6D | EF 16-35 f/4L IS | EF 24-70 f/2.8L II | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II | EF 35 f/1.4L II | EF 50 f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,917 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2385
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited over 5 years ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
Jan 10, 2016 12:45 |  #8

Vertigo1 wrote in post #17852575 (external link)
I think the front element moves on pretty much every ultra-wide lens out there, although there may be odd exceptions.

Probably. I only mentioned it because the movement is backward

edit: could have worded the whole thing better. The outer element moves independent of the built in lens hood, so when at 16mm the outer element is least protected by the hood, once you zoom in a bit (and the element retracts) you have more protection from the sun raking across the lens.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cccc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,017 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 172
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Jan 10, 2016 12:46 |  #9

What are you shooting?

Most people say the 17-40 has terrible distortion, which it does... But the lens corrects VERY well with LR.
29-40 mm is a large range to forgo in exchange for one stop. But I shoot mostly at f8, so outright speed is rarely something I consider.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frodge
Goldmember
Avatar
3,087 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 147
Joined Nov 2012
Post edited over 5 years ago by Frodge.
     
Jan 10, 2016 15:38 |  #10

I have the Tokina 12-24mm not as fast as the Tokina 11-16mm, but I can say the image quality is great. Its built like a tank and I personally love the lens for landscape.


_______________
“It's kind of fun to do the impossible.” - Walt Disney.
Equipment: Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 40mm 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 XR Di, Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50mm 1.8, Tamron 70-300VC / T3I and 60D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnf3f
Goldmember
Avatar
4,092 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 656
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wales
     
Jan 10, 2016 17:01 |  #11

Just my 2p!
I had my 17-40 for about 9 years and I found it to be a cracking lens. No it is not perfect and certainly not the sharpest tool in the box, however it produces the best colour rendition that I have seen from, almost, any lens. It is sharp enough, especially at the centre, the distortion is easily corrected - or better still used! At today's prices it is an excellent buy in my opinion.
There is, however, a fly in the ointment, namely the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS. It is more expensive (but not silly money) and is a much superior lens in all respects except colour where it is equal. My 16-35 gives even more "Life" and texture to images, if that is possible, and it only took a couple of minutes use before my 17-40 went on the market and the 16-35 F4 was on order!
If there is any way that you can afford, or save for, the 16-35 F4 then I believe you will find it more than worth the extra. Just my 2p.


Life is for living, cameras are to capture it (one day I will learn how!).

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ph2003
Member
96 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Post edited over 5 years ago by ph2003.
     
Jan 11, 2016 00:35 as a reply to  @ CanonYouCan's post |  #12

Sorry, nevermind my bad~




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
05Xrunner
Goldmember, Flipflopper.
Avatar
5,751 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Likes: 502
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Pittsburgh PA
     
Jan 11, 2016 07:12 |  #13

alot of the reviews I have watched about the Tokina 16-28 2.8 is that it is as good as the Canon 16-35 2.8II and better in corners and almost matches nikon 14-24. I would choose the Tokina over the 17-40 unless you dont care about the faster lens and are more concerned with focus speed


My gear
Fuji X-T2, Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 OIS, Fuji 35 f2, Fuji 50 f2, Fuji 90 f2, Fuji 55-200 3.5-4.8 OIS
Sony RX100 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
oingyboingybob
Member
Avatar
178 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 110
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Devon, UK
Post edited over 5 years ago by oingyboingybob. (2 edits in all)
     
Jan 11, 2016 09:58 |  #14

There's also the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 which is getting positive reviews. I'm waiting for the price to drop a little at which point I will buy. I tried the Canon 16-35 f4 but found it lacking, a big disappointment.


Sony A7iii, Sony A6300
Tamron 28-75mm, Sony 200-600mm
Samyang 18mm
Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 mkii, Sigma MC-11

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,115 posts
Likes: 31
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jan 11, 2016 10:17 as a reply to  @ oingyboingybob's post |  #15

What disappointed about the 16-35F4IS? Most people like it.
I am a happy owner of the 17-40L. It is sharp, compact and light. I would like IS, but I do like the focal length range and contrast of the lens.




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

7,456 views & 1 like for this thread
Wide lens full frame: Canon 17-40L F4 vs Tokina 16-28 2.8
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 sandywalkler
924 guests, 253 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.