Does Tokina's 16-28mm have better IQ than Canon's 16-35L ...

... if filters aren't a concern for me? I recently sold my Sigma 10-20mm to make room for an UWA.

I don't do a lot of landscapes, so at times I think the f/2.8 would really come in handy, as I'm going to use it for street photography or just for fun.

I also plan to use it for a lot of club & event photography with a flash.

IQ is the most important factor for me. Also, The Tokina is a lot cheaper than the Canon. It also has less distortion (a little less time to correct during PP).

One of the biggest drawbacks for the Tokina is that its pretty damn heavy (at 950 grams).

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

i've never used one, but Ken Rockwell says "This Tokina is also as good optically as Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8 L II." and he is an internationally recognized expert in these matters.

Personally, if KR rates it that high, I'd go with the Canon.

rick_reno wrote in post #14926254
i've never used one, but Ken Rockwell says "This Tokina is also as good optically as Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8 L II." and he is an internationally recognized expert in these matters.

Personally, if KR rates it that high, I'd go with the Canon.

Haha thanks Rick!

If money wasn't an issue, I think I would go with the Canon, but since its a very real issue, I'm thinking whether the Tokina is actually on par with the Canon in the IQ department.

The Tokina beats the Canon hands down. I've had both and used both on full frame canon cameras and it's not even a question. Save some $$ in the process.