I have a friend that will sell me his (in warranty) 17-40 for $480 bucks - I can't pass it up. I already have a 16-28 which is a great lens... What would you do in this situation? Get the canon and sell the tokina?
I hate these types of threads, but I have about 24 hours to decide or he is listing it on ebay...
Would appreciate experience from people that have both...
I originally had the 17-40L and it was a great lens. However, I really wanted f/2.8 for available light and shallow depth of field. I sold it and got the 16-35 2.8L (first version). It too was very good, but I was then intrigued by the reviews for the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and how it appeared to be superior to the Canon 16-35 in both sharpness and distortion. So I sold the Canon and got the Tokina. I can say that from a purely image quality point of view, the Tokina is the best of the three. What you do give up, however, is Canon's USM autofocus and the ability to use filters. Otherwise, the Tokina is built just as solid as the Canon lenses, and the autofocus is accurate.
I don't use wide angle lenses very often. But when I do, I want the best image quality, and the Tokina serves me very well.
A buddy of mine has the Tokina and I've used it a few times. I like it overall, but I don't know if I ever really felt like I got consistent results from it. I own a 17-40 and am satisfied with it, although the f/4 is limiting sometimes. I kind of just accepted that I probably need a 35L for the types of shots the 17-40 won't give me.
Taking in account the image quality and price difference, Tokina all the way.
Perhaps, Canon has a somewhat bigger zoom range, but the image quality is way better for Tokina.
Also, f/2.8 is huge difference, not only for leting more light to go inside but also for the AF engine - as you know there are AF points which are engaged only at F/2.8.
The lack of filters is not a concern for me, anyway at 16 mm a CPL won't work (in fact on any UWA won't work) and a ND isn't such a stringent need for me. Yes, I do use filters but not on such wide lenses.
17-40L has bigger distortion and vignetting than Tokina. And I compare Tokina's f/2.8 with Canon's f/4.
OTOH, 17-40L is smaller and lighter. And btw, is NOT 17-40, actually is 19-40 (!).
Generally I would recommend you to stay with Tokina, but do as you wish.
JohnTh wrote:
Taking in account the image quality and price difference, Tokina all the way.
Perhaps, Canon has a somewhat bigger zoom range, but the image quality is way better for Tokina.
Also, f/2.8 is huge difference, not only for leting more light to go inside but also for the AF engine - as you know there are AF points which are engaged only at F/2.8.
The lack of filters is not a concern for me, anyway at 16 mm a CPL won't work (in fact on any UWA won't work) and a ND isn't such a stringent need for me. Yes, I do use filters but not on such wide lenses.
17-40L has bigger distortion and vignetting than Tokina. And I compare Tokina's f/2.8 with Canon's f/4.
OTOH, 17-40L is smaller and lighter. And btw, is NOT 17-40, actually is 19-40 (!).
Generally I would recommend you to stay with Tokina, but do as you wish.
I actually purchased the 17-40 and now have both. Ill probably do a side by side today. But it seems the Tokina is not a true 16. Its more of a 17. Both lenses immediately looked to be the same focal length on the wide end - but illl have to check this again as it was a quick comparison. However I do remember my tokina not being quite as wide as a friends 16-35 2.8L II.
JohnTh wrote:
Taking in account the image quality and price difference, Tokina all the way.
Perhaps, Canon has a somewhat bigger zoom range, but the image quality is way better for Tokina.
Also, f/2.8 is huge difference, not only for leting more light to go inside but also for the AF engine - as you know there are AF points which are engaged only at F/2.8.
The lack of filters is not a concern for me, anyway at 16 mm a CPL won't work (in fact on any UWA won't work) and a ND isn't such a stringent need for me. Yes, I do use filters but not on such wide lenses.
17-40L has bigger distortion and vignetting than Tokina. And I compare Tokina's f/2.8 with Canon's f/4.
OTOH, 17-40L is smaller and lighter. And btw, is NOT 17-40, actually is 19-40 (!).
Generally I would recommend you to stay with Tokina, but do as you wish.
Oh, and not to argue or disagree, but do you have and backing to the statement to the Canon 17-40 being a true 19-40? I haven't ever heard that before and am curious...
The lack of filters is a big concern for me with the Tokina. Given there are now solutions for the Nikon 14-24 and Canon 17 TS-E are there kits now for the Tokina?
if the 17-40 is 19mm at the wide end I'll be a monkey's uncle.
Well, if you need to shoot anything at 35mm then your decision is easy.
Sounds like you already have decided, but I would never be without a fast wide lens in the 35mm range (full frame).
The long end of the Tokina, at 28mm, is just not a compelling focal length on full frame for me: it's a bit too wide for natural looking portraiture, and it's not wide enough to create that sweeping sense of space and foreground to background depth that 24mm and wider lenses can do.
But it may be a perfect lens if you already have a fast normal zoom or a fast 35mm prime.
drew.bowser wrote:
Oh, and not to argue or disagree, but do you have and backing to the statement to the Canon 17-40 being a true 19-40? I haven't ever heard that before and am curious...
...I have 17-40 from many years and only lately I found it. I did some tests to compare Tokina's 16-28 with 17-40 and I saw that the angle of view of Tokina's 16mm is unexpectedly wider than 17mm from Canon. I shoot the same location (an office interior) from same vantage point by using a tripod.
Looking at EXIFs, Tokina said 16mm while Canon had 19mm. Thinking that I did a mistake, I shot again, being very attentive to have both lens at the extreme wide end. The results were the same.
Going back in my archive, I looked for photos which I knew that I used Canon 17-40L wide open (the locations were tight, the subjects were very close etc.) and I saw, to my surprise that all these photos have the EXIF's Focal Length set at 19mm.
This info, correlated with my concrete tests (shooting my office which - by the way - isn't a big room hence the difference in the angle of view shouldn't be noticeable) in which Tokina 'catches' sensibily more (aprox. 1-2 m with the subject at a distance of 2,5 meters - don't kill me, I don't measured but the difference is clearly there) made me to say that the difference at the wide end between Tokina and Canon is much bigger than 1mm. And based on EXIF I'd say that it is 3mm in focal length.
But if someone else thinks that I'm wrong and can correct me, I'm eager to hear.
JohnTh wrote: ...I have 17-40 from many years and only lately I found it. I did some tests to compare Tokina's 16-28 with 17-40 and I saw that the angle of view of Tokina's 16mm is unexpectedly wider than 17mm from Canon. I shoot the same location (an office interior) from same vantage point by using a tripod.
Looking at EXIFs, Tokina said 16mm while Canon had 19mm. Thinking that I did a mistake, I shot again, being very attentive to have both lens at the extreme wide end. The results were the same.
Going back in my archive, I looked for photos which I knew that I used Canon 17-40L wide open (the locations were tight, the subjects were very close etc.) and I saw, to my surprise that all these photos have the EXIF's Focal Length set at 19mm.
This info, correlated with my concrete tests (shooting my office which - by the way - isn't a big room hence the difference in the angle of view shouldn't be noticeable) in which Tokina 'catches' sensibily more (aprox. 1-2 m with the subject at a distance of 2,5 meters - don't kill me, I don't measured but the difference is clearly there) made me to say that the difference at the wide end between Tokina and Canon is much bigger than 1mm. And based on EXIF I'd say that it is 3mm in focal length.
But if someone else thinks that I'm wrong and can correct me, I'm eager to hear.
Going back in my archive, I looked for photos which I knew that I used Canon 17-40L wide open (the locations were tight, the subjects were very close etc.) and I saw, to my surprise that all these photos have the EXIF's Focal Length set at 19mm.
That's interesting. I wonder what's really going on there. I would think the lens was actually reporting the position of the focusing system movement rather than the "real" focal length--so it would report "17mm" at the short end of focusing movement whether it was optically 17mm or not.
I would not be surprised if the 17-40 was actually 18 or 19 to 38 or 39. That's extremely common in zoom lenses and one of the things you pay to avoid in a maker's top-of-the-line zoom.
