Looking for A Good Sharp FF Wide Angle Lens

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #17396293
Glad to see so many fans of the Tok 16-28. It is seriously sharp all the way to the corners. I was in no hurry to buy a wide angle and did lots of research, ultimately I will want a filter system but that is secondary to my uses now.

OP, the lens has a reverse zoom, meaning it is retracted when at 28 and out when at 16... If that impacts your need for a protective filter.

Signed,
Former protective filter user

Im thinkin about it!

nightcat wrote in post #17399139
I use the Tokina 11-16mm all the time on my 6D. For me it works at 15mm and 16mm. The IQ remains sharp on a FF as well.

Check out the image I posted above, the corners are horribly soft and out of focus it seems like.. maybe it's my sensor.. who knows.

GplPhotography wrote in post #17400525
This lens is really really bad on fullframe.. used it for the first time with my fullframe serious and got this...
Looks good at firstm but if you notice only the center is sharp, other than the center it is horribly blurry and soft. This photo is a perfect example as you can really tell when you are looking at the stars.

Hosted photo: posted by GplPhotography in
./showthread.php?p=174​00525&i=i118409434
forum: Canon Lenses

Thanks for the example, appreciate it!

Nope, that's not your sensor...the oddly shaped stars near the edges of the frame are an example of coma...here's a good explanation of it from lensrentals.com. I'm guessing since that's an APS-C lens that just happens to cover a FF image circle at 16mm that they didn't make much of an attempt to correct for the coma.

That being said, if you stop down a couple of stops it should clean up fairly well...that obviously eliminates it's usefulness for astrophotography purposes, but as a daytime lens, it may still be useable.

I have a 10-20mm Sigma f/3.5 that I've tried on my 6D and I'm able to get an image down to about 14-15mm before I see any major vignetting...I haven't checked it for coma, but I suspect it suffers from the same issue your Tokina does. Here's another thread that talks about using a 1.4x teleconverted with the Sigma 10-20mm (not clear if it's the f/4-5.6 or the f/3.5 version) to use on a full frame camera.

I took my 6D and 10-20mm to the local Calumet a couple of years ago to try this out and I wasn't terribly impressed with the results wide open. It worked...but the corners weren't acceptable to me until I got to f/11 or so, so I ended up buying the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 lens since I needed something wide for astrophotography. I can't recommend that 14mm lens enough, especially for the price.

For what it's worth, I am very happy with my Sigma 12-24mm on 6D. I don't think there is anything wider for FF. Mk I of this lens is cheap (got mine on ebay for $350) and it is sharp far as I can tell.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pe8y​jg

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qeiR​hZ

btweller wrote in post #17400794
Nope, that's not your sensor...the oddly shaped stars near the edges of the frame are an example of coma...here's a good explanation of it from lensrentals.com. I'm guessing since that's an APS-C lens that just happens to cover a FF image circle at 16mm that they didn't make much of an attempt to correct for the coma.

That being said, if you stop down a couple of stops it should clean up fairly well...that obviously eliminates it's usefulness for astrophotography purposes, but as a daytime lens, it may still be useable.

I have a 10-20mm Sigma f/3.5 that I've tried on my 6D and I'm able to get an image down to about 14-15mm before I see any major vignetting...I haven't checked it for coma, but I suspect it suffers from the same issue your Tokina does. Here's another thread that talks about using a 1.4x teleconverted with the Sigma 10-20mm (not clear if it's the f/4-5.6 or the f/3.5 version) to use on a full frame camera.

I took my 6D and 10-20mm to the local Calumet a couple of years ago to try this out and I wasn't terribly impressed with the results wide open. It worked...but the corners weren't acceptable to me until I got to f/11 or so, so I ended up buying the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 lens since I needed something wide for astrophotography. I can't recommend that 14mm lens enough, especially for the price.

Yea stopping down might work but like you said it would be useless for astro work.. what do you mean you can't recommend the Rokinon 14mm for the price? I was actually looking at that lens, looks good and affordable.

Arutemu wrote in post #17401085
For what it's worth, I am very happy with my Sigma 12-24mm on 6D. I don't think there is anything wider for FF. Mk I of this lens is cheap (got mine on ebay for $350) and it is sharp far as I can tell.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pe8y​jg Sea of Tranquility by Arutemu, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qeiR​hZ Empire in winter by Arutemu, on Flickr

Some more samples here: https://www.flickr.com …u/sets/72157649​376379096/

I'll have to check this one out now!

GplPhotography wrote in post #17403059
Yea stopping down might work but like you said it would be useless for astro work.. what do you mean you can't recommend the Rokinon 14mm for the price? I was actually looking at that lens, looks good and affordable.

he said he can't recommend it "enough"

the star shot is definitely coma. was that the sigma or the canon 17-40?

If i remember correctly, the Rok 14 is fairly distortion and coma free, I was very close to buying it when i started considering spending a little more and getting the Tokina. 16 is really wide on FF. Before i bought it, i strapped an old 17-28 on my Minolta 35mm and was reminded of what a difference there was. It had been a long time since using the 35mm and I had just gone FF with nothing wider than 24mm.

have you browsed the Tok 16-24 lens sample archive? https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=9653​11&page=29

edit: damn, its clear and cold, i'm going out to take a shot of the stars. viewing ^ that thread reminded me that i need to check this thing out a bit closer before i plan some trip to take a night sky shot and come home disappointed.

The Rokinon 14 is FAR from distortion free

Any update GPL? Curious what you decided to do!

freestylee30 wrote in post #17411850
Any update GPL? Curious what you decided to do!

Just going to fool around with my tokina 11-16mm for now, as when I open up the Aperature the coma disappears. Will see what the future holds.

What aperture are you seeing decent results? I'm heading to Arizona here in a couple weeks and that trip will be my first real decent test for my Rokinon 14mm...

I'm thinking ideally I'd like to pickup a 16-35 f/2.8 I or II (II is sooo darn expensive though), best thing would be if I could find a version I to trade for my 70D, but I don't see that happening.

The Tokina 16-24 lens archive looks good, but I'm guessing that it would have to be purchased used? I don't see it anywhere? Only the 16-28?!?

freestylee30 wrote in post #17414431
What aperture are you seeing decent results? I'm heading to Arizona here in a couple weeks and that trip will be my first real decent test for my Rokinon 14mm...

I'm thinking ideally I'd like to pickup a 16-35 f/2.8 I or II (II is sooo darn expensive though), best thing would be if I could find a version I to trade for my 70D, but I don't see that happening.

The Tokina 16-24 lens archive looks good, but I'm guessing that it would have to be purchased used? I don't see it anywhere? Only the 16-28?!?

Didn't really play close attention but i'd say f/5.6+

everyone gave correct responses so far; but I'll give my experience.

Sold my 600D+11-16 Tokina in the move to FF, picked up a 6D and 17-40L (I want the option of screw on filter in this range as it's my travel edc lens, 16-35 Tokina was thus discounted sadly)

While the 17-40L was nice; it left me... unfulfilled. I eventually picked up the 14 f/2.8 Rokinon; and while nice; left me with the same mental gap.


Then the 16-35 f/4L IS came out. Grabbed it for a trip as it came out; and it's the first time I haven't missed the 11-16.

Worded another way; I wasn't happy with any FF replacement for 11-16 until I moved up to the 16-35 f/4.

Thanks for sharing that. I don't know if I'll be happy with any F/4 lens because I would want to use mine for astro as well and figured that would put me in the F/2.8 category. Unfortunately these are all pretty darn expensive, because I too would like something that could take screw on filters.