tokina 14-20mm f2 announced

I know how to process. He compared ff files to crop files. I'm wondering if there is something special he does.

ed rader wrote in post #17845722
I think you better research that one a bit more. you get a couple of stops advantage (narrower DOF) with a FF camera for the same framing than with 1.6 crop. hint: the same framing requires longer lens or moving closer.

It's not a couple of stops, it's 1-1/3rd stops. A 70D with a wide open 85/1.2 will give the equivalent image as a 6D with a wide open 135/2 plus a mm because canon doesn't make a 136/2.

Bassat wrote in post #17845678
3.) DOF control. If you are shooting slow-aperture zooms, and are happy with the results, again, don't bother. To get the most out of this feature, you'll need some f/1.x primes, or at least some f/2.8 zooms. That gets expensive, quickly. IMHO, lots of folks way overdo this.

This is what tempts me. I think what my 70-200/4 IS could do on FF. Sure I could get a Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS, but it would be twice the weight and wouldn't AF as well as my 70-200. I would need a 15-65/2.5 on crop to do what my 24-105 could do on FF and that doesn't exist. Plus there just isn't as good offerings for crop and astrophotography specifically wide field milky way stuff. This Tokina lens is a good step in the right direction, but its still a 22-32/3.2 equivalent. A 16-35/4 IS on FF only gives up a 2/3 of a stop and has a much better zoom range. From there a 14/2.8 Samyang on FF would make a nice complete UWA package for me. There is no 9mm 1.8 for crop to compete there.

For what it is worth, I made the move about 2 years ago and couldn't be happier. However I did so while also going prime only in the messy lens changeover process and I agree that if you do it you need to get some 1.x primes or 2.8 zoom or bottom line more expensive lenses than you really want to pay for. The flip side is that when I had apsc I had a bunch of meh lenses, and it was wasteful and not doing much for me. People tend to overdo it, especially here, but the reality is a ff and a 24, 35, or 50 depending on your style and only use that lens for 6 months and you would be surprised how with zero thought on tools and much more control over noise and DOF and more latitude in PP will give you more satisfying photos than a crop and 3 zoom lenses. Just my opinion on it anyway.

I am always on the lookout for super wide stuff, but I don't think this is it. I am currently rocking an older sigma 14 2.8 I think that I stole used and it is very solid, but not reasonably sharp unless really stopped down.

I can tell you that the tokinas get razor sharp stopped down a little bit.

Frodge wrote in post #17848116
I can tell you that the tokinas get razor sharp stopped down a little bit.

I've had my Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 for about a week. It is quite excellent wide open. Good glass. Large for apsc glass, though.

I kind of like the well built heft of their lenses. My 12-24mm is probably one of the sharpest lenses I own stopped down and even wide open to a degree. Its a great landscape lens. I renewed my love affair with it this fall.

Pre-order price at B&H is $899