Canon 10-18mm f/ 4.5-5.6 VS. Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8

I am deciding between the two lenses and would like to hear other people's opinions, pros/cons of each, and anything else you have to add. I have been looking to buy an Ultra wide angle lens for awhile now because my widest lens at the moment is my kit 18-55m. I will most likely be using it for landscapes, city photography, and maybe other things. Thanks!

Never tried the Tokina II, the one was sharp and more prone to flair. You get this because you need f/2.8, IMO the two things you listed you want to do don't need f/2.8.

The 10-18 wasn't out when I was buying, and I have what I want. It is cheaper and has IS, IMO it will do what you want.

I personally went with the Sigma 10-20 & 8-16 for crop and 17-40L for my ff.

Here is a current uwa thread with more information that may help https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1430628

mlanyi wrote in post #17635731
I am deciding between the two lenses and would like to hear other people's opinions, pros/cons of each, and anything else you have to add. I have been looking to buy an Ultra wide angle lens for awhile now because my widest lens at the moment is my kit 18-55m. I will most likely be using it for landscapes, city photography, and maybe other things. Thanks!

Heya,

I had the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 II. Extremely sharp lens, even wide open. Wicked sharp stopped down even a little bit. Amazing lens really. Built like a tank, heavy, sharp, wonderful contrast & color. It takes normal filters. And it focused lovely at infinity, so I always left it literally at infinity and never worried, it was always in focus (even astro stuff, I never had to use live view or anything, I just turned it to infinity and it was in sharp focus, which was just such a wonderful thing). The reason I *had* this lens is because I eventually got sick and tired of the flaring. It flares horribly. Even a street light can give you a big ugly blob of flare. Some times flare can be ok. But too much just destroys an image. And Tokinas tend to just have the most flare I've ever experienced.

I moved to an EF-S 10-22 for my APS-C based ultrawide needs. It's not as sharp as the Tokina. But the color & contrast is good, it's reasonably sharp, takes normal filters, and the MOST important thing, is that it handles flare very well, and I can barely get flare out of it even with direct light sources.

Ultimately I still stick with the 10-22 (which has better flare handling than the 10-18 STM by the way). For me, an ultrawide has the following importances: 1) corner sharpness when stopped down (f8 as a standard for me), 2) normal filter use (threaded, non-bulbous front elements), 3) flare handling. So I gave up the sharpness for the flare performance when I moved from the Tokina to the Canon 10-22. I don't regret it either, because frankly, it's not enough of a sharpness loss to matter to me.

***************

Examples:

Tokina 11-16 F2.8 II

No-flare (if you're careful about where the light source is, and if it's masked or direct, you can avoid flare):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oBDH​4X

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/op2m​Rd

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pEcA​V4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nS8k​eV

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pLeG​Jr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qj8F​KT

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qyZX​4s

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/toKh​ok

Amazing pictures! And thank you so much for all the input! I want to start trying long exposure pictures with whatever lens I buy. I know from reading reviews that the Tokina is better at them, correct me if I'm wrong. But I was wondering with your experience with both lenses what is your opinion on long exposure with the lenses? Also, obviously the tokina has much better build quality with the focus window, metal mount, and just overall a better build lens, is that + the f/2.8 worth the extra $100 or so? I wish I would be able to try both lenses for a couple days but unfortunately no camera shops around my area rent lenses, and I don't feel like paying $50-75 to rent them online because my budget is already kind of tight (Not tight enough where I should worry about the price of the tokina, I just can't add another 75 dollars on top of that.)

Thanks!

mlanyi wrote in post #17635956
Amazing pictures! And thank you so much for all the input! I want to start trying long exposure pictures with whatever lens I buy. I know from reading reviews that the Tokina is better at them, correct me if I'm wrong. But I was wondering with your experience with both lenses what is your opinion on long exposure with the lenses? Also, obviously the tokina has much better build quality with the focus window, metal mount, and just overall a better build lens, is that + the f/2.8 worth the extra $100 or so? I wish I would be able to try both lenses for a couple days but unfortunately no camera shops around my area rent lenses, and I don't feel like paying $50-75 to rent them online because my budget is already kind of tight (Not tight enough where I should worry about the price of the tokina, I just can't add another 75 dollars on top of that.)

Thanks!

Heya,

The Tokina is no better at long exposure than any other lens. There's no magical properties. I do a lot of long exposure, and everything is the same to me. The only detectable differences between these lenses are sharpness in corners if you pixel peep and flare performance/handling. Long exposure, short exposure makes zero difference and will behave the same on any lens. F2.8 is only useful if you are shooting at F2.8, which is only useful on an ultrawide when you're trying to gather a lot of light (like wide field astro). F2.8 is not worth worrying about on an ultrawide unless you need it strictly for light gathering in low light. Otherwise, for depth of field, F2.8 on an ultrawide has miles of depth of field, so you won't be isolating anything with unless you focus on something within a few inches. I don't miss the F2.8, I never shot the Tokina at F2.8 for anything other than astro (see above examples, they're all F8, F11, F16, F22). I shot F2.8 only when shooting long exposure wide field astro, where every stop of light matters.

Bottom line is, if you want a night lens for astro wide field, get the Tokina.
If you want a lens for everything else, ultrawide, don't get the Tokina, get the 10-18 or 10-22.
I say that after having them both.

Here's some long exposure examples:

Tokina (long exposures, in day light & moon light)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oEb8​MY

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oWCB​hd

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oFju​tb

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/op3Q​Cb

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rbLG​g1

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ryGN​Co

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qDZK​wL

You have been extremely helpful! Thank you for all your input, and I think I have decided to go with the Canon 10-18mm. After looking at all my options, and with all the help from you I think that would be the best lens for me. I look forward to sharing with you the pictures I get with it.

I have decided to order both lenses off amazon. I didn't think I could choose between the two without actually "trying" them out. I know renting was always an option but I didn't want to spend $100 on rentals before I bought one. And without a good camera shop around my area I wasn't able to go into a store to try them out. Being an Amazon Prime member, I will get them within 2 days, and their return policy is fantastic. Thank you again for all the help/opinions! I hope i end up with the right lens!