Yes, I know these two are vastly different lenses in nearly every aspect.
BUT... does anyone have BOTH, or has used both?
1) Which do you prefer?
or
2) If you could have only one, which would end up in your bag?
Note: I roughly shoot 95% sports, 3% portraits, 2% weddings. and like longer lenses better (300mm), but the wide angles are a LOT of fun for me since I have great access to teams on the fields/venues. Will be setting up more remotes as time and locations allow. I also have the Rokinon 8mm and love it.
I have the Rokinon. For me, this is a special lens for some type of scenes. If you want convenience, Tokina is certainly better. However, I think you should have both.
I've still got a Tokina up for sale (actually haven't listed it yet) as I only use the Tamron 15-30 now. The Tokina is smaller and easier to carry than the Tamron monster !
The Tokina is very sharp on a D800E, though I tried 3 samples to find the best. Low distortion too. It does flare, which you have to be aware of, but that seems far less of an issue for your particular uses, and may even be an artistic bonus ! For the flexibility (especially in situations where you don't have time to change lenses or manipulate the people) of an excellent lens I'd go for the Tokina.
I have the Rokinon and a Canon 16-35 f2.8. I use both at different times, but probably use the zoom 3 to 1 over the 14mm. The 14mm is quite a bit sharper though, just not as flexible.
I missed the last B&H sale for the Rokinon 14mm (at $249) so I'm keeping an eye on it via CanonPriceWatch.com ... was hoping for it by the first week of Jan. So we'll see.
Info a or of shooting with the sun so it's good to know the Tokina doesn't play well. Just that alone may have swayed me. So, for now I'll wait for a sale on the Rokinon 14mm. Maybe one of the wide zooms will get updated or get to a price where it's worth the short comings.
