Tokina 11-16 or Canon 10-22?

Oh Heck...!

I'm still happy with my 12-24mm Tokina f/4.

p4olom wrote in post #6606779
Honestly, I've used both lenses and the Tokina is the best IMO.

The only thing I don't like about the Tokina is the reversed zoom, but I can adapt to that.

Hi,
do you have any sample/comparison pics to show us the differences? not even of the same subject, just ones that made you feel you are getting better results with the 11-16?

Thanks!
Erez

Katzer1 wrote in post #6607375
Hi,
do you have any sample/comparison pics to show us the differences? not even of the same subject, just ones that made you feel you are getting better results with the 11-16?

Thanks!
Erez

LightRules wrote in post #6467850
See my comparo here http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/1022v1116

hehe

luant16 wrote in post #6607554
hehe

This doesn't really answer my question (but thanks anyway).
Everyone knows by now that the Tokina has an edge when it comes to sharpness, everyone who read LightRule's review or other reviews.

There is more to a lens than just sharpness: color rendition, contrast, flare resistance.
I own the 10-22, it is plenty sharp for my needs, and things can always be sharpened further in software. What I like about canon lenses is the contrast and color rendition.
The 10-22 is very good IMO in that department. I think Canon has an advantage over 3rd party makers, since they can program a color curve for each lens right in the camera, so straight out of the camera things just pop better.

What I was asking was pics from someone who has both lenses, that made that person decide - this is the lens I am keeping. It could be of the same subject or not, because once you use a lens for a while, you learn to anticipate more or less it's output in different scenario.

So if anyone has such samples, please share

Erez

Katzer1 wrote in post #6607375
Hi,
do you have any sample/comparison pics to show us the differences? not even of the same subject, just ones that made you feel you are getting better results with the 11-16?

Thanks!
Erez

I don't have a comparison shot because the 10-22mm belongs to a friend although I do have some pictures that I've taken with it.
As for the 11-16mm its been raining here in LA so nothing yet

You will be happy with either lens. I just think the build quality price and the f2.8 give the tokina the edge.

here's a couple with the 10-22mm (Sorry if it's not up to standards, I'm still a beginner )

I know you already bought the Tokina... But still.. Have you considered other WA lenses?

Sigma 10-20mm for example? Not a F2.8 .. But still.

A store rep tried to convince me that the Sigma 10-20mm is actually the best of the lot, better even than the new Tokina, but I have a sneaky suspicion that it might have a lot to do with his store being a Sigma dealer and not a Tokina dealer. It hasn't changed where my money will be going, and that's to Tokina.

John_TX wrote in post #6606460
So what did you end up doing? I'm giving the Tokina 11-16 a really serious look for some night aurora & nightscape shots. Just curious which lens you ended up with and why.

I sent the Tokina back and have the Canon. I like the Canon WAY better for the reasons I posted. Most important for me was the range and the MFD. It also just feels better to me.

Yes, the Tokina is slightly sharper and 2.8 but those are not reasons for me to keep it over the Canon. For the shots I take with it, mostly landscapes, the Canon is better IMHO. I think these two lenses are for different types of shooting.

Here is a snowy HDR scene from the new Canon:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Kronie wrote in post #6614831
I sent the Tokina back and have the Canon. I like the Canon WAY better for the reasons I posted. Most important for me was the range and the MFD. It also just feels better to me.

Yes, the Tokina is slightly sharper and 2.8 but those are not reasons for me to keep it over the Canon. For the shots I take with it, mostly landscapes, the Canon is better IMHO. I think these two lenses are for different types of shooting.

Here is a snowy HDR scene from the new Canon:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

side note: to comment on your photo, not sure if the HDR is working for you. looks more like a lot of purple fringing especially where the snow meet object edges.

Your 10-22 is exhibiting a lot of CA in that particular shot. I wonder if it has anything to do with how the HDR was processed? I'm seeing a lot of green along the snow/water line.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I just placed an order for the Tokina 11-16. It came down to aperture speed for me. I really need f/2.8 for some of the night shots I've got planned this winter.

I'm just REALLY glad I don't have a FF camera as there's NO WAY I'd be able to justify the $1400 Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L II at the moment! $570 is much more palatable.

John_TX wrote in post #6616414
Your 10-22 is exhibiting a lot of CA in that particular shot. I wonder if it has anything to do with how the HDR was processed? I'm seeing a lot of green along the snow/water line.

Yea, its the processing from Photomantix.

Kronie wrote in post #6616798
Yea, its the processing from Photomantix.

That's good, I'm sure running it through photoshop or something else could easily remove it.

John_TX wrote in post #6616698
I just placed an order for the Tokina 11-16. It came down to aperture speed for me. I really need f/2.8 for some of the night shots I've got planned this winter.

The Tokina is a very nice lens.

I have heard this before though regarding the 2.8 and low light landscapes. Will you be hand holding the Tokina at night? If you plan on using a tripod then 2.8 doesn't matter and who takes landscapes at 2.8 anyway?

If I had both lenses I would use the Tokina for indoors and low light hand held shots and the Canon for landscapes and close ups.

Kronie wrote in post #6616898
The Tokina is a very nice lens.

I have heard this before though regarding the 2.8 and low light landscapes. Will you be hand holding the Tokina at night? If you plan on using a tripod then 2.8 doesn't matter and who takes landscapes at 2.8 anyway?

If I had both lenses I would use the Tokina for indoors and low light hand held shots and the Canon for landscapes and close ups.

Yeah, I'm looking at doing ~30 second exposures of the aurora and other sky-related shots. Tripod is kinda mandatory for those.
At infinity focus, stopping down isn't really an issue if your subject is far enough away; as everything is in focus.

At 16mm @ f/2.8 your hyperfocal distance is about 15.7 feet, thus everything behind that point should be in focus; thus no stopping down required to further increase the depth of field.

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html