Canon 17-40L vs Tokina 12-24 vs Tokina 11-16

I'm sure it has been asked a lot of times, and I apologize in advance if this is a tiring question already

I'm considering an ultra-wide lens (I consider Canon 17-40L to be wide but maybe not ultra-super-wide?), and am leaning towards Tokina 12-24mm (after reading many, many reviews on Sigma, Tamron and Canon 10-22mm), since it seems that it delivers the best bang for the buck with considerable quality in par with the others.

The Toki 11-16mm is nice and faster (and a little more expensive), but I'm seeing image results from Pixel Peeper, and I want something a little bit more versatile than those I saw.

My friends have tried to convince me to buy the 17-40L instead, but I do want to have something wider than 17mm. Plus it's on the higher end, in terms of price.

My current list:
Canon XSI/450D
Kit Lens 18-55mm
Sigma 18-125mm DC OS
Canon 50mm f/1.8

Do you think I should get 17-40 instead of the Toki?

You already have 18-55 and 18-125 lenses. Go with an ultra wide. Both Tokinas are excellent. The Sigma 10-20 is very popular too.

LR is right. The 17-40 is NOT an ultrawide lens on a crop factory body. If you had a 5D, then we'd be talking, but your XSi turns the 17-40 into a general purpose lens.

I had the Canon 10-22. Great lens, very wide, somewhat soft wide open, expensive. I sold it and bought the Tokina 12-24 f/4. Great lens, sharp er than the Canon, bright (constant f/4), not wide enough, less $ than Canon. I sold it and bought the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Best of the bunch IMHO. Sharpest of the 3, almost as wide as the Canon (close) very bright constant f/2.8.

thanks for all your input! I didn't know that 17-40 would work better with an FF.

Now, the question goes down to.. for the first wide angle lens, should I get the (slightly) more versatile 12-24mm or the faster but almost semi-fisheye 11-16mm?

I have the play with Tokina 11-16 on my xti...and I just love it!!! I recently brought the 17-40 canon and then return it b/c I need something wider!!!

But to answer your I would go for the 12-24 f4 if you not going to shoot at night handheld a lot but more landscape....and the for the 11-16 is nor as bad on the distortion....

Thanks for your input, azncarbos!

Does anyone any thoughts on using Toki 12-24 mm for portraits?

I've had all three. The 17-40 on a crop (as everyone else mentioned) isn't an ultrawide. I had one of the first 11-16's and it didn't have enough focal range for me. It might for you given your other lenses, however. I ended up sticking with the 12-24. Better range for me, f4 is plenty fast for what I'll use it for and it's sharp and built like a tank. As long as your happy with the range, the 11-16 is one seriously wonderful lens. The 2.8 would help a lot on interior shots of stuff like churches, etc. Either will serve you well.

I own the 12-24, and it's a great combination of wonderful optics, great build quality, good range and constant aperture. If I were buying new again, I might get the 11-16, but I like having the extra on the long end with the Tokina.

Either way, I'm a big fan of Tokina's lenses. It's a shame their 16-50 wasn't quite up to the snuff of some of their other lenses (not that it's bad, just that the Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 18-50 Macro are better). Tokina is one of the few lens makers that thinks that premium build quality belongs in EVERY lens, not just the pricey ones. I also have the 10-17 fisheye, which is also great.

I agree thaat the 17-40mm is not...

I agree that the 17-40mm is not a wide angle lens on a 1.6x camera. Instead it is a medium range zoom without a decent long end, without a fast aperture and without IS assist.

I have and love the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina which I once teamed up with my 24-70mm f/2.8L. Now, that is a beautiful combination but, considering that I use two or three bodies, was a very heavy combination.

I now use my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens as the medium range zoom and combine this with a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on two bodies for general use. The 17mm is wide enough for most of my shooting.

If I were using the 17-55mm when the 11-16mm Tokina was introduced, I would have seriously considered that lens instead of the 12-24mm.

The 11-16mm is a tiny bit wider and has (of course) the extra stop of speed. The 12-24mm is slower but, it has a longer side. The 24mm is equivalent to 38.6mm and will give coverage that is pretty well distortion free. You can shoot people with a 24mm lens and they will not look as strange as they do with a 16mm lens.

Thanks everybody for the input!

I've had the chance to try out Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 this afternoon (just briefly). I only took pictures on the interior of the shop (probably just 3-4 shots from each lens), and the images from 11-16 came out as "more interesting" (can't find a good word to express it), while the 12-24 seemed fine for taking portraits (RPCrowe, I saw your point clearer regarding "people not looking as strange" when trying out the 12-24 vs. 11-16).

Leaning even more to 12-24mm as my first UWA, although I'm still very tempted to get 11-16mm (happen to love the "strange" look of the 11-16).

Would still appreciate more thoughts, as I plan to purchase one online some time next week. Thanks again!

I would go for the 11-16.
I've owned the 12-24 a few months, nice lens but not as sharp, wide or fast as the 11-16.
Not a difficult choice for me.

I own the 17-40 and the tokina 11-16 on a crop. They are 2 very different lenses for different applications. I view them as complementary to each other. The 17-40 is my walking around lens. The tokina UW is much more of a niche lens.

The question you have to ask yourself is what do you want to do with the lens? Given the choice between the two lenses, I would most likely go with the 17-40, but I would not give up the Tokina now that I have it.

I had the Tokina 12-24, then the Sigma 10-20, and lastly the Tokina 11-16.
I've also used the Canon 10-22 to test it against my Sigma.

One thing that bothers me about the tokina 12-24 is that there is a bit of purple fringing at 12mm. The tokina 11-16 has much less CA. No ultrawide is as sharp as the 11-16, so if optics are your top priority, then I think the 11-16 is a great deal. However, this is an ideal lens for a prime lover like me, who want optics at the cost of convenience/being able to zoom.

If you want more versatility, then consider a Sigma 10-20mm or a Canon 10-22, both are wider and has a nicer ring AF motor. It's more compact and can take regular thickness polarizer, the tokina 12-24mm will vignettte till 13mm with a thick polarizer.

One thing to keep in mind is that Tamron 10-24mm is coming out soon. It should be very versatile and the 24mm end can be ok for portraits as well. Tamron's optics tend to be very good at the cost of so so body build. If you can wait a bit for the reviews, you may want to see how this lens performs before plunking down close to $500.

Good luck.

I've been extremely happy with my 11-16mm.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I had the Tokina 12-24 then bought a 17-40 f4. I sold the 12-24 after a while because I never used it anymore. I SOMETIMES miss the 12-24, but i don't shoot cities or buildings. If I did, it would be a different story.

I really did like the 12-24 though, wonderful lens.