Tokina 11-16mm @ 16mm vs Tamron 17-50mm IS @ 17mm

I've got all prime lenses, and I love them. I've got a 30, a 50, a 85, and a 100mm macro, all of which I pair with my Canon 60D (1.6 crop). I want to purchase a wide angle lens to complete my set. However, I could also use a multi-purpose zoom lens... but that's more of a convenience than a need. It would be very nice to have, though.

I was pretty much set on the Tokina 11-16mm until I saw the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 IS lens. Clearly the Tamron doesn't go all the way down to 11mm, but 17mm is enough for me I would imagine. The Tamron would fulfill my need for a wide angle lens while also giving me the convenience of an all-rounder zoom lens.

My question is performance: how well does the Tamron perform @ 17mm compared to the Tokina @ 16mm?

If the Tamron doesn't perform well as a wide angle lens, I'll stick with the Tokina. If the Tamron does perform well at 17mm, I'll just snag that and knock out two birds with one stone. I would appreciate feedback from those who have experience with these lenses.

There is a HUGE difference between 11mm and 17mm

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12052768
There is a HUGE difference between 11mm and 17mm

Listen to what he said.
I took my 17-55 and Tokie to Europe. In churches the 11-16 just shines!

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #12052768
There is a HUGE difference between 11mm and 17mm

I know, but I don't necessarily need it. I need a wide angle lens, not a super wide angle lens. But I need it to perform well as a wide angle lens. I know some zoom lenses are soft and have a lot of distortion when used at its widest focal length, which won't cut it. I'm looking to see how the Tamron at 17mm compares to the Tokina at 16.

i don't think anybody buys the tokina to use it at 16mm...if you don't need below 17mm you shouldn't really consider it in my opinion...also you may want to look at the non VC version of the tamron as it's supposed to be better than the stabilized one

I am not sure why the hell you need the Tamron, you already have the walkaround 30, just get the Tokina and be done with it.

DreDaze wrote in post #12053008
i don't think anybody buys the tokina to use it at 16mm...if you don't need below 17mm you shouldn't really consider it in my opinion...also you may want to look at the non VC version of the tamron as it's supposed to be better than the stabilized one

Really? That's very interesting, I'll look into that. Thanks.

Scapevision wrote in post #12053026
I am not sure why the hell you need the Tamron, you already have the walkaround 30, just get the Tokina and be done with it.

Zoom capability is really helpful in some environments, and because the 17-24mm range would be useful to me... if it performs well at those ranges.

HansSteinert wrote in post #12052569
I was pretty much set on the Tokina 11-16mm until I saw the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 IS lens. Clearly the Tamron doesn't go all the way down to 11mm, but 17mm is enough for me I would imagine. The Tamron would fulfill my need for a wide angle lens while also giving me the convenience of an all-rounder zoom lens.

My question is performance: how well does the Tamron perform @ 17mm compared to the Tokina @ 16mm?

If the Tamron doesn't perform well as a wide angle lens, I'll stick with the Tokina. If the Tamron does perform well at 17mm, I'll just snag that and knock out two birds with one stone. I would appreciate feedback from those who have experience with these lenses.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is good at 17m. If you shoot a lot of indoor wide shots the Tokina 11-16 2.8 would be better.


XSi (450D) with Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-vc)

at f2.8 - 17mm

I have both, any particular scene you would like to have compared? I don't know if I'll have the time to do a full on comparison, but if you want I can try to do a comparison and focus on sharpness/contrast-colors/ca/flare... As long as you don't plan on pixelpeeping edges of landscapes @ 2.8, since that's rather pointless to me
In my experience, they're both very good, but I think the Tokina might have a small edge in sharpness.

So are you asking: I only need a wide that goes to 17mm, should I get the 11-16 or the 17-50?

I think he is literally asking: "how well does the Tamron perform @ 17mm compared to the Tokina @ 16mm?".
The short answer is: great.
From the digital picture's crops, it even looks better, but those images are somewhat conflicting my own experiences with both lenses.
If you really don't plan to shoot any wider than 16-17mm, I wouldn't get the 11-16, you'd be better off with a 17-50 or even something like a Tokina 12-24, which is a nice range as well.

TweakMDS wrote in post #12055432
If you really don't plan to shoot any wider than 16-17mm, I wouldn't get the 11-16, you'd be better off with a 17-50 or even something like a Tokina 12-24, which is a nice range as well.

This is a good suggestion. If you don't need to go as wide as 11 mm, then you probably don't need an ultra-wide lens such as the 11-16, which is certainly more of a specialized lens than a general one. Granted, it's a terrific lens, but if you don't need to do what it does, then it's probably not going to be much use.

There's a lot to be said for the convenience of a general zoom like the 17-50, but the suggesion of the 12-24 is also good. It would give you ultra-wide capablity, but also a lot more flexibility than the 11-16. It's an excellent lens.

You do actually need an 11mm, you just haven't realized it yet. Once you use the UWA, you will wonder how you got along without it.