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

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

Here you go.

http://crashcoursephot​ography.com/tokina-16-28mm-lens-review/

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

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

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

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

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).

Here's another one.

http://youtu.be/-jn-YMuhuB0

Sorry here's the right video.

http://youtu.be/tT4vQZ​ckk7Q

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.

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.

frugivore wrote in post #17121471
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.

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.

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.

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.