Canon 16-35mm II vs Tokina 11-16mm 2.8mm

Canon 16-35mm II vs Tokina 11-16mm 2.8mm

I have Canon 7D and want WIDE ANGLE Lens, have a nifty fifty 1.4 already, once I buy one of these lens.... I will sell it,

Any input is appreciated...

thanks in advance

why not keep the 50 1.4 and buy the 16-35 or 11-16, not having anything wider than 16 or 35mm is pretty limiting..

For your 7D, the toke has my vote.

I agree. On a 7D, the 16-35 would not be wide enough.

dont forget the Tokina 12-24, it is pretty sweet.

canonnoob wrote in post #10722450
why not keep the 50 1.4 and buy the 16-35 or 11-16, not having anything wider than 16 or 35mm is pretty limiting..

sounds like good advise, which would you choose?

no one can answer but yourself:

do you need *ultra*-wide? if you do then 11-16 (+ something else, 16mm is *extremely* limiting).

if not, 16-35mm is fine (although I would get the 17-55 IS f/2.8 instead for way more usefulness).

FF or crop?

On FF, it's only the 16-35 and I wouldn't have it either way.

IMHO, even on crop (unless you have to have ultra wide) Basically, these two can't be compared one-up.


I mean, on FF the ideal is the 16-35, 17-40, 14L, 17 TS-E, or the Z21.

If on on crop, then you can't really compare the 16-35 to the Tokina or Sigma. The focal length are just different.