Canon 10-22/Tokina 11-16 Comparison Test

Great job Jojo. That is some ugly flare on the Tokie....

This may be a stupid question, but why does the toki appear to let in so much more light at the same aperture? (Im refering to the light fall off tests

I love mine so far! Great comparison thread LR.

DDCSD wrote in post #5692055
Wow, the Toke looks to be kicking the pants off of the 17-55. To me at least.

It really does.

DDCSD wrote in post #5692055
Wow, the Toke looks to be kicking the pants off of the 17-55. To me at least.

It's hard to tell by the web-sized photos, but the center sharpness was pretty close between the 11-16 (@16mm) and the 17-55 (@17mm). At least I have a hard time choosing which is the sharper lens...

However, the edges of the 11-16 are much sharper by a fair margin.

-Mike

EDIT: This is not an attack on Darth BTW. Just some peoples assumptions of the post he put up. Very helpful post BTW Darth. Thanks.

Basically I disagree with some of people here... (well looking that the 17-55 comparison before anyway).

It seems to me the 17-55 is sharper at the rear fences but less so on the front railing (in the crop I mean). If you look at the furthest fence, it is a bit sharper than the 11-16. Were they focused on the same point? (turns out they are).

As the f-stop was 2.8 (for both), the wider angle lens should have a slightly longer DOF so if they were both focused on the house (actually it's the thermometer box), 17mm would be slightly softer than 11mm in the foreground - which is is.

Sorry, this test hasn't convinced me it is "kicking the pants off of the 17-55". It may be similar, but this test doesn't show it.

I am not saying the 11-16mm is a bad lens. Just I can see faults in the test.

I have to decided between the Canon 10-22 and the Tokina 11-16 too. I can get an almost new 10-22 for the same price as the 11-16 (well a bit cheaper actually). I don't care too much about 2.8 (though it would be handy) as I'd be stopping down anyway, I want the sharpest, best colour/contrast and least problems one.

By the way I actually own the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, so if someone can prove to me the Tokina is as good as that lens (with a better test ) I'd get the Tokina.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #5862202
Were they focused on the same point?

Yes. Focus point was the white thermometer box on the railing in the center of the frame.

Please keep in mind, that as mentioned, my copy of the Tokina was back-focusing, so it really isn't a direct comparison. The original picture that I posted was more meant to compare 11mm vs. 17mm Field-of-View.

-Mike

DarthMTS47 wrote in post #5862747
Yes. Focus point was the white thermometer box on the railing in the center of the frame.

Please keep in mind, that as mentioned, my copy of the Tokina was back-focusing, so it really isn't a direct comparison. The original picture that I posted was more meant to compare 11mm vs. 17mm Field-of-View.

-Mike

Which it does do, very nicely. I just can't agree it kills the 17-55 (which some people, not you) say it does. In fact, you Darth say they are similar.

If you had the choice to choose but one, would you choose the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16?

While I'm at it, I noticed you have the 70-200 2.8L. I did a lot of testing (well a little testing and a lot of reading) and it seems the 70-200 F/4L is sharper than the 2.8L. Any particular reason you chose the 2.8 over the 4?

BTW thanks for posting the comparison Darth.

Thanks very much for the test !! The edge sharpness on the 11-16 is really amazing. I'm sure we've seen how it SMOKED the 12-24 $1000 Nikkor, but....
I'm choosing the Canon for the following reasons:

1. flare control..ultrawides get in so much scene, that at night I would
feel better about the Canon.
2. A better zoom range ( at the cost of some sharpness ) I have the
Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 and the canon at 22mm will snuggle up and fill the
gap nicely.
3. This is the MAJOR one. I want a superwide for the super vista/DOF type
shooting. The much closer focus of the canon makes these type of
shots much more dramatic.

My brother has a Canon 10-22 but I really wanted to see the Tokina go head-to-head with it and now I have. It sure is sharp, but for me, the three things I mentioned sway me.

The Tokina is not readily available in the U.S. even though Adorama and B&H have it list at $569. Excellent used 10-22 are going on ebay for $650 every 3-4 days.

Very interesting thread, thanks again.

Man...Good comparo and tough call. I'm in the middle of remodling my collection and I'm back to the frickin' start of what's great.
10-22 + 24-70? Now, the 11-16 + 17-55? The MFD of the Canon is awesome, couple that with the better focal length and flare control and you've got a great lens. Hard to beat sharp corners and a fast aperture though.
Good test Jojo, thanks

Mr. Clean wrote in post #5865180
Man...Good comparo and tough call. I'm in the middle of remodling my collection and I'm back to the frickin' start of what's great.
10-22 + 24-70? Now, the 11-16 + 17-55? The MFD of the Canon is awesome, couple that with the better focal length and flare control and you've got a great lens. Hard to beat sharp corners and a fast aperture though.
Good test Jojo, thanks

You got it, Mike. Both great glass. I ended up opting for the Tokie f2.8, but that's only because I use it more as a low-light, ultra wide prime (as opposed to a "stopped-down, landscape" lens). Oh, and I really dig the AT-X PRO build quality

Where as, I have decided to go for the Canon.

Because I'll use it as a "stopped-down, landscape" lens.

For me it is just as good as the Tokina (very similar at least). Yet it has better flare control. Which is what you really need in a UWA landscape lens.

I will use my 17-55 2.8 IS for indoor wide shots, because:
1. I don't shoot that sort of shot often (only once so far)
2. 17mm is wide enough for me (in this situation)
3. I like to zoom in more for indoor shots anyway.
4. If I want a general wideangle shot of a room, the Canon is good enough for me (because I nearly never shoot general wide-angle shots of rooms).

I think it depends what you need it for.

To me the Canon is a slightly (SLIGHTLY) better landscape lens, because of flare control (although you could argue for the Tokina, because of edge sharpness it is better... though to me, if your subject is good enough, who's going to be pixel peeping the edges anyway? Also, I checked a raw from the 10-22 and the edge sharpness is not that bad - especially after proper sharpening).

Also, if I get the 10-22mm I will be able to sell it for nearly all I paid for it (when I move to 5D mkII in the future - I'll keep the 40D at a telephoto camera). In Hong Kong, Canon retains its value very well. 3rd party lenses not.

Either lens is awesome. But I feel they are "good" at different things.

LightRules, what kinds of low light stuff have you been able to shoot with the Tokina 11-16? Have you had a chance to shoot stuff like cityscapes where you have point-source lighting (e.g. street lights, building lights) in the frame?
If so, how was the flare?
Or does this lens only flare when exposed to extremely bright light sources like the sun (or incandescent desk lamps 5ft away ).
I'm just trying to get a feel for how it handles flare in various situations.

OT: Does anyone know what the f-stop breaks are for the Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5?
10mm = f/3.5
--where does it kick up to f/4?
--where does it kick up to f/4.5?
22mm = f/4.5

John_TX wrote in post #5870538
LightRules, what kinds of low light stuff have you been able to shoot with the Tokina 11-16? Have you had a chance to shoot stuff like cityscapes where you have point-source lighting (e.g. street lights, building lights) in the frame?

Most of my shots are family shots, especially of the little tykes..more the creative kind, indoors, just for some variety and creativity. I mix it up inside between this lens, the 1755 f2.8 IS, and the Sigma 30 f1.4. So no outside, streetlit scenes for me.

LightRules wrote in post #5872242
Most of my shots are family shots, especially of the little tykes..more the creative kind, indoors, just for some variety and creativity. I mix it up inside between this lens, the 1755 f2.8 IS, and the Sigma 30 f1.4. So no outside, streetlit scenes for me.

Thanks for the info.

BTW, I talked to B&H today and they stated the Tokina 11-16 should be in stock sometime next week. They suggested placing a back-order if you really want one. I assume they aren't getting TOO many this shipment and probably just about have those coming in allocated from previous orders.