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

One thing I'll agree with is the CA of the 12-24. The 11-16 (albeit I only used for a few days) had none, while the 12-24 did have some present even on my first shoot. Like everyone points out, it's easily correctable, but it's there.

Would it be difficult to use 11-16mm for portraits? That's mostly where my concerns is.

Thanks again.

Add me to the list of people very happy with the Tokina 116.

The 11-16 is a great lens, but it is an UWA, with all of the limitations implied by that description. Not too many people would be happy with their portrait taken by this lens.

NorCalAl wrote in post #6518234
One thing I'll agree with is the CA of the 12-24.

Hmmm, I've taken thousands of shots with mine and never seen any CA.

I didnt have any problems with CA either....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

DrPablo wrote in post #6525396
Hmmm, I've taken thousands of shots with mine and never seen any CA.

I've decided to get the Tokina 12-24mm from eBay (and hopefully will get the 25% cash back in 2 months). Thanks everybody!

The 11-16 is a better lens than the canon or the other tokina. It is sharper at 4.0 than eith er lens stopped down to whatever the sweet spot is. As far as not having not much range, you are only kidding yourself if any of the ultrawides will be a walk around lens. They are pretty specific to certain kinds of shooting similar to a fisheye, soft foccus etc. If you want wide go with the tokina 11-16, if you want a normal zoom on a crop camera go with the 17-40, tamron 17-50 or the canon 17-55.

twistedlim wrote in post #6558449
The 11-16 is a better lens than the canon or the other tokina. It is sharper at 4.0 than eith er lens stopped down to whatever the sweet spot is. As far as not having not much range, you are only kidding yourself if any of the ultrawides will be a walk around lens. They are pretty specific to certain kinds of shooting similar to a fisheye, soft foccus etc. If you want wide go with the tokina 11-16, if you want a normal zoom on a crop camera go with the 17-40, tamron 17-50 or the canon 17-55.

Yeh I've always wondered about this complaint. It's partially how they made it so good optically. But regardless, it all depends on how you see it. Some see it as a limited zoom; I see it as 6 primes in one [And actually I'm serious...]

creme.brulee wrote in post #6558349
I've decided to get the Tokina 12-24mm from eBay (and hopefully will get the 25% cash back in 2 months). Thanks everybody!

Very nice choice!!!!! make sure show off some pictures when you get it!!!

+1 on the Tokina 12-24 f4. I have it, and I love it. Although at times I wish it were a 2.8, it really isn't much of a problem.

I'm getting a Tokina 11-16 2.8 soon! Hope it will serve me well!

forget the 17-40...it's crap on a crop. nothing going for it other than weather-sealing.

go for the 11-16. you'll be pleased with it.

The 17-40 is not crap on a crop body, it is a very sharp lens with excellent contrast and fast AF. It is sharp corner to corner on a crop, with negligible vignetting, low,distortion, and excellent performance.

The Tokina 12-24 F4 is also sharp, and AF is accurate and fast enough. It does have some CA, and flare can be a problem if shooting into the sun. I don't use mine much, but the new Tokina 12-28 F4 looks like a better bet. I would give that model serious consideration.
If you need a very wide lens, the Tokina's are great. I used mine for some photos when selling my old house. The 12-28 F4 will have more utility.