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

oingyboingybob wrote in post #17853691
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.

Yes please do tell about the 16-35 f/4IS.....

I've owned the 17-40L and currently own both 16-35L f/2.8 mk2 and f/4IS version. The 17-40L worked great for my style I shoot. I later needed faster glass for events work. Now that camera's have improved in the noise department I think I can get away with slower f/4 glass with image stabilization for certain applications.

I'll have to say the 16-35L f/4IS is a drastic change in IQ compared to my f/2.8 mk2 UWA.

OP you must determine your needs. If your using this lens as a general walk around f/2.8 may suite your needs. If your using it outdoors and indoors with flash (shooting groups of people) f/4 is fast enough and you may possibly need to stop down to get deeper dof for group shots of people.

oingyboingybob wrote in post #17853691
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.

Lacking in what way exactly? It's a stunning lens.

thank you for the comments ill check the tokina probably
but ill also read about the tamron that was posted here.

thanks alot!

roeibi wrote in post #17854908
thank you for the comments ill check the tokina probably
but ill also read about the tamron that was posted here.

thanks alot!

the Tamron is indeed getting good reviews but, here in the states at least, cost twice as much as the Tokina.

550-600 vs 1100-1200

I have heard VERY good things about the Tokina 16-28, but I have also heard bad things about them. This appears to be around centering issues.
It would appear that if you can find a good one (shouldn't be hard) then the Tokina is an excellent lens, there just appear to be some quality control issues.
Just try before you buy as it is basically a very good lens, fast and reasonably cheap - well worth the effort!

Vertigo1 wrote in post #17853971
Lacking in what way exactly? It's a stunning lens.

Lacking in IQ. I compared images with my Canon 24-105 f4-5.6L taken at 24mm and 35mm and the Canon was better all round. You may think the 16-35 f4L is stunning, I do not.

oingyboingybob wrote in post #17857782
Lacking in IQ. I compared images with my 24-105 taken at 24mm and 35mm and the zoom was better all round. You may think the 16-35 f4L is stunning, I do not.

I'm reasonably certain that the 16-35 f/4L and the 24-105 f/4L are both zooms. The 24-105 is the better of the two? Really? I'm guessing you are the only person with that opinion.

oingyboingybob wrote in post #17857782
Lacking in IQ. I compared images with my Canon 24-105 f4-5.6L taken at 24mm and 35mm and the zoom was better all round. You may think the 16-35 f4L is stunning, I do not.

Sorry but every review I've read says it's stunning, as does pretty much everyone who's owned one. The 24-105 isn't in the same league.

I think yours was faulty.

oingyboingybob wrote in post #17857782
Lacking in IQ. I compared images with my Canon 24-105 f4-5.6L taken at 24mm and 35mm and the zoom was better all round. You may think the 16-35 f4L is stunning, I do not.

I can only conclude that there was something badly wrong with your 16-35 F4. I used to have a nice copy of the Canon 24-105 F4 L IS and it could't live with my Canon 16-35 F4 L IS where they overlapped. My 24-105 has since been replaced by the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L V2 and my 16-35 is almost on a par with it where they overlap from F5.6 onwards.
The 16-35 F4 L IS is simply a stunning lens at it's current price.

oingyboingybob wrote in post #17857782
Lacking in IQ. I compared images with my Canon 24-105 f4-5.6L taken at 24mm and 35mm and the zoom was better all round. You may think the 16-35 f4L is stunning, I do not.

Even though the 16-35L f/4IS is "slower glass" I rank that as one of the most remarkable zooms I own. In fact the micro contrast is on par with all of the zooms I own.

I've compared the IQ I get from my 16-35L f/2.8 mk2 and the newer slower f/4 IS version definitely shows it's modern glass it has in that new lens. The 16-35L f/4 is simply stunning!!!

If the OP needs faster glass then there is no alternative but to buy an f/2.8 zoom. The 17-40L copy I had surpassed the IQ of my previous 24-70Lmk1 (calibrated by using my CPS membership).

I can't stress enough how much I like the 16-35L f/4IS!!!

Just to add a little substance to my suggestion that the Canon 16-35 f4L was lacking IMO.....I have now bought the Tamron SP 15-30 VC and having completed focus analysis on it via Reikan Focal Pro.

Please note the following:

The Tammy produced quality of focus (QOF) figures of between 1800 and 1900 all the way from f2.8 to f11 at which point the numbers dropped to approx 1500 at f16 and 1400 at f22 probably due to diffraction.
I had performed a similar series of tests on the Canon 16-35 when I had it and the best QOF it could produce at any aperture was just above 1500. This could be seen as softness in the photos produced with this lens on my EOS 5DS.

Maybe my copy was a 'rogue' -I don't know- but I still believe the Tamron is a better buy.

oingyboingybob wrote in post #17874720
Just to add a little substance to my suggestion that the Canon 16-35 f4L was lacking IMO.....I have now bought the Tamron SP 15-30 VC and having completed focus analysis on it via Reikan Focal Pro.

Please note the following:

The Tammy produced quality of focus (QOF) figures of between 1800 and 1900 all the way from f2.8 to f11 at which point the numbers dropped to approx 1500 at f16 and 1400 at f22 probably due to diffraction.
I had performed a similar series of tests on the Canon 16-35 when I had it and the best QOF it could produce at any aperture was just above 1500. This could be seen as softness in the photos produced with this lens on my EOS 5DS.

Maybe my copy was a 'rogue' -I don't know- but I still believe the Tamron is a better buy.

I've never tried a Tammy 15-30 UWA lens before. Sounds like it's a nice zoom to test out.

What I've observed is that the new Canon Lens offerings really has a distinct "look" now compared to the older "L" lenses. I think one of my first experiences with this change in added micro contrast sharpness was switching from my 70-200 f/2.8IS mk1 to the newer 70-200 f/2.8 L mk2. Then the newer breed of lenses like the 24Lmk2, 24-70L f/2.8 mk2 all have this distinct colour rendition and sharpness.

Since owning the 17-40L and currently owning both Canon 16-35L versions I'll have to say the new 16-35 f/4IS version follows the "new" distinct look you get with all of the new canon lenses.

I think if I was to try the Tammy UWA lens I'd buy a used one since the intial cost price usually drops dramatically in the used market. Due to the high resale value of the Canon "L" lenses I normally buy all of my Canon Glass brand new.

OP, depending on your application you may find buying an f/2.8 constant aperture zoom will give you a safe margin to shoot in possibly more situations. The f/4 glass works fine as long as your camera body can control noise well if you need to shoot very high iso for acceptable shutter speeds in certain lower light situations to capture motion.