Wide lens full frame: Canon 17-40L F4 vs Tokina 16-28 2.8

which you think is better?
i heared that the bokeh on wide camera is good even with F4 and the 2.8 isnt realy noticeable
on the other hand
i also heared you cant get lens flares with 17-40 and that the tokina is shaper

what do you think?

I know nothing of the Tokina, although I know their 11-16 is very highly regarded.

Not owned nor used the Canon but, from what I hear/read, it's a very average lens considering it's an L.

I don't really have any experience with the Tokina, but I've used the Canon 17-40 as well as the Canon 16-35 II.

The 17-40 is pretty good with flare. It does not have any susceptibility to veiling flare but it will make some ghosts if you put the sun directly in the frame. I wouldn't say it is exceptionally good or bad in this regard....just kind of typical. Nearly all of my lenses will make ghosts with the exception of my 50L which seems to be the best lens against flare I've ever used.

Bokeh is a characteristic of the lens design, and I've never really looked at the blur aesthetics of these lenses in all that much detail. It's not that common to have a significantly blurred background with such wide / slow lenses in the first place so you don't see it all that often.

As for the amount of blur....on the one hand it isn't all that often you will blur a background a huge amount when shooting ultra wide. But if the subject is close and the background is far then you will get some. And of course if you are at the long end of these lenses you get more situations like that. So when you do have thinner DOF......a stop is a stop. Here's a couple at f/2.8....but neither are at the widest end of the range.

I have the 17-40 and have no complaints about it. The 28-40 range is more important to me than f/2.8. I have primes, if I need speed.

The Tokina is the best

The big advantage of the Tokina is :
-Razorsharp corner-corner as the world changing Nikon 14-24 (see the Digtal Picture review)
-f2.8 (you use it on f6.3-f8 mostly, but f2.8 is still a big advantage for faster focussing and be able to focus in dark circumstances)
-1mm extra (every mm counts for an uwa)
-built quality like a tank with built in lenshood
-f2.8 recommended if you want to try starheavens in future

The 3 disadvantages of the Tokina are :
-The weight (it fell on the ground once) but the lenshood saved the lens, although it was plastic, so I had to glue the hood
-Flare (due to the bulb lensform) but if you get to know the lens, you start looking to avoid flare and it works
-No filters (for me not a problem, but maybe for others)

But image quality was most important for me, so I went for the Tokina.

I had the 17-40 also, most are satisfied for the price, but I found there was too much distortion + corners unsharp.
The 16-35 2.8 I was too unsharp in general and the II was not worth the money as the corners of the 16-35 f4L IS are sharpest.

As i'm a prime-freak and the heavy Tokina fell once on the ground, I bought the lighter Tokina 17 f3.5 prime (out of production, but found it on Ebay), superlight,compact and no flare.
Today I have the Canon 16-35 f4L IS (best one out there).

Very happy with the Tokina. Bought it for corner to corner sharpness, and it has delivered. The outer element moves, and does so backward from what you might expect. So this means it is most susceptible to flare (without the sun in the frame) when at 16mm. I have not had a problem with flare, the few times the sun was just out of the frame, and I was shooting at 16-20 mm, I just put my hand out to block it.

The lens sample thread has some good examples.

Oh yeah, the lens is practically distortion free fron 20-28, that is another big reason I bought it. Under 20 distortion is very well controlled.

I think the front element moves on pretty much every ultra-wide lens out there, although there may be odd exceptions.

Vertigo1 wrote in post #17852575
I think the front element moves on pretty much every ultra-wide lens out there, although there may be odd exceptions.

Probably. I only mentioned it because the movement is backward

edit: could have worded the whole thing better. The outer element moves independent of the built in lens hood, so when at 16mm the outer element is least protected by the hood, once you zoom in a bit (and the element retracts) you have more protection from the sun raking across the lens.

What are you shooting?

Most people say the 17-40 has terrible distortion, which it does... But the lens corrects VERY well with LR.
29-40 mm is a large range to forgo in exchange for one stop. But I shoot mostly at f8, so outright speed is rarely something I consider.

I have the Tokina 12-24mm not as fast as the Tokina 11-16mm, but I can say the image quality is great. Its built like a tank and I personally love the lens for landscape.

Just my 2p!
I had my 17-40 for about 9 years and I found it to be a cracking lens. No it is not perfect and certainly not the sharpest tool in the box, however it produces the best colour rendition that I have seen from, almost, any lens. It is sharp enough, especially at the centre, the distortion is easily corrected - or better still used! At today's prices it is an excellent buy in my opinion.
There is, however, a fly in the ointment, namely the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS. It is more expensive (but not silly money) and is a much superior lens in all respects except colour where it is equal. My 16-35 gives even more "Life" and texture to images, if that is possible, and it only took a couple of minutes use before my 17-40 went on the market and the 16-35 F4 was on order!
If there is any way that you can afford, or save for, the 16-35 F4 then I believe you will find it more than worth the extra. Just my 2p.

Sorry, nevermind my bad~

alot of the reviews I have watched about the Tokina 16-28 2.8 is that it is as good as the Canon 16-35 2.8II and better in corners and almost matches nikon 14-24. I would choose the Tokina over the 17-40 unless you dont care about the faster lens and are more concerned with focus speed

There's also the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 which is getting positive reviews. I'm waiting for the price to drop a little at which point I will buy. I tried the Canon 16-35 f4 but found it lacking, a big disappointment.

What disappointed about the 16-35F4IS? Most people like it.
I am a happy owner of the 17-40L. It is sharp, compact and light. I would like IS, but I do like the focal length range and contrast of the lens.