I just purchased the Tokina 12-24mm in the last couple of minutes from 17th St Photo (NY based) online. It showed the Nikon mount was on backorder, but the Canon mount as being in stock...
WestFalcon wrote:
I've taken pictures with both the canon and the tokina side by side at the same scene and same settings and the color and contrast looked identical. The canon was of course wider but the tokina seemed slightly sharper under high magnification.Both are great lenses in my opinion.
Same here, also the extra 2mm of the Canon is a mess of muddy soft edges and miss clarity.
Lalfer wrote:
Same here, also the extra 2mm of the Canon is a mess of muddy soft edges and miss clarity.
This is simply false. Funny how when it's clear that one lens has an advantage over another -- in this case, 2mm at the wide end -- it's detractors will find a way to try to minimize the advantage. I can assure you that 10 and 11 mm setting on the Canon are sharp and clear. I know because I use mine at 10 and 11mm all the time. If you had looked at the sample photos on this thread and others, you would see for yourself that the Canon 10-22 is a sharp, excellent performer.
I understand that you like the Tokina, and are happy with your purchase. But that is no reason to spread falsehoods about the Canon.
Lafler - do you have any proof of these muddy soft edges and missing clarity? The photos speak the loudest in topics like this. All you have to do is go a few pages back to see photos from both cameras. And I don't see anything near muddy in the 10-22 images that were posted.
cdhender wrote:
Lafler - do you have any proof of these muddy soft edges and missing clarity? The photos speak the loudest in topics like this. All you have to do is go a few pages back to see photos from both cameras. And I don't see anything near muddy in the 10-22 images that were posted.
there: I'll be more than happy to post more images for you!
Like most lenses there's probably sample vaiation. Lalfer's lens may be off between 10 and 12mm.
What is apparently the case is as follows :-
The sharpness and contrast is close between 12 and 22mm
The Canon is wider by 2mm
The Tokina is longer by 2mm
The Tokina works on non EF-S mount cameras (10D and prior for example)
The Tokina is significantly cheaper.
So if you need the extra 2mm and have an EF-S camera then buy the Canon
Otherwise buy the Tokina.
The proof is in the pictures and I have yet to see a tack sharp, colorful, contrasty picture from the Tokina lens. Not one example in this now 10 page thread. And yet the 10-22 pictures in this thread (with the exception of the abomination posted by Lalfer) and others on FM are sharp, colorful, and contrasty. From what I have seen, buy the Canon if you want a good lens, or buy the Tokina if you can't afford the Canon (and suffer the quality consequences).
smpetty wrote:
The proof is in the pictures and I have yet to see a tack sharp, colorful, contrasty picture from the Tokina lens. Not one example in this now 10 page thread. And yet the 10-22 pictures in this thread (with the exception of the abomination posted by Lalfer) and others on FM are sharp, colorful, and contrasty. From what I have seen, buy the Canon if you want a good lens, or buy the Tokina if you can't afford the Canon (and suffer the quality consequences).
Given that NON of the images posted here has been 100% crop I'm amazed that you can see sharpness at a sub-pixel level. Differences between photographers and in style mask anything else. Those people that have shot with both lenses report similar sharpness and contrast. Until someone posts 100% side-by-side comparisons to prove or disprove that you can't reasonably say anybody is suffering from anything (except posibly a bruised ego).
My objection to Laifer's comments was not based on "bruised ego" or anything similar. It was simply that he made a very strong statement which I know to be false. It's not a matter of opinion, but a statement of fact that is readily contradicted by many of the sample photos posted on this thread and others on this forum, including at least one 100% crop that I posted on another thread here.
That said, I am not opposed to the Tokina lens. I'm sure it's the right solution for many people.
dmpetty.....My tokina pictures are just as contrasty and sharp as my Canon L pictures and I can't understand why you are making the statements about the Tokina...you must be looking at a bad monitor because I see sharp contrasty pictures on this thread even at the low resolution of the screen. I have shot with both lenses(canon 10-22 & the Tokina 12-24) and they have no significant difference in contrast and the tokina seems a bit sharper blown up.
Have you shot with both? Like I said earlier, I like both lenses but $300 is a significant savings if you don't need 10 mm angles which I do not need.
It seems to me that if you removed EXIF info from identically framed and focused photos at identical exposures and focal ranges, I doubt all the people that purport that one or the other as clearly superior can tell the difference.
Given the difference in cost, buy what you can afford--you can't go wrong with either!
I agree with a previous post to Kawter regarding his Canon 10-22 lens:
"... love your shots... looks like no reason to return this lens."
Test shots and 100% crops can be interesting (to some) but the actual photos tell the real story. Both of these lenses produce vivid, punchy, beautiful photos. I'm not sure I could tell them apart just looking at the photos they produce. I personally would go with the Canon lens, but the Tokina is a reasonable option, and I can see why some folks prefer it, even though I'm not one of those folks.
Regaring this Canon vs. Tokina comparison, we may just have to agree to disagree.
Well I owned the Tokina 17mm fixed lens and can attest to it's sharpness and ruggedness, I had sold it as I had the Canon 16-35L on order and needed the funds, ended up after trying two copies, got a refund and now I split that money into two lenses, one a very nice Canon 200L f2.8 and I have the Tokina 12-24 f4 on back order with Adorama, but, I've been thinking more and more that I may not really need a lens that wide, the 17mm was plenty wide for the type of shooting I do so I have emailed to Adorama asking to change my backorder to the Canon 17-40L BUT, if for some reason they are not able to do that or don't get message in time to make the change, I'm not truly worried as I have it on several photographer's viewpoint that the lens is a keeper and if it's made anywhere near like the fixed 17mm, it is one tough lens! And weight wise, it comes in 3 or so ounces heavier than the Canon 17-40L, solid built lens.
As to the 10-22, I held one when I was on business in Scotland and to me I thought he handed me a store sample that didn't have any glass inside, it is that light, like an empty soda can, very light in weight. But as the images you can see around the net, that lens provides some excellent images! I can't swing the higher price, can barely go the extra for the 17-40L right now, would love to borrow the 10-22 and put it through some shots though
I'll know by tomorrow I hope, as to which lens has been shipped.
G2
Talia wrote:
Regaring this Canon vs. Tokina comparison, we may just have to agree to disagree.
I agree!
I'm sorry if I upset anyone - I was a bit harsh in my last post. Trying to evaluate lenses in a forum thread isn't scientific or objective. I don't doubt that these are both good lenses and my comments were only based on the limited pictures posted so far. I have a 10-22 on order, so I am a bit biased. Having never used either lens, I'm really in no position to pass judgement the way I did in my earlier post.
steve_t wrote:
Like most lenses there's probably sample vaiation. Lalfer's lens may be off between 10 and 12mm.
What is apparently the case is as follows :-
The sharpness and contrast is close between 12 and 22mm
The Canon is wider by 2mm
The Tokina is longer by 2mm
The Tokina works on non EF-S mount cameras (10D and prior for example)
The Tokina is significantly cheaper.
So if you need the extra 2mm and have an EF-S camera then buy the Canon
Otherwise buy the Tokina.
That was a great post Scott and certainly the sign of a real gentleman. I think you'll love the 10-22 Canon.......I just happen to have the tokina and really won't use it often, so I really didn't need to spend the extra $300 or so. Good luck to you. Canons are much better on resale too.
Couple more pictures from 12-24 Tokina. In order to get a really wide angle image, I can either upgrade to full frame camera or buy the Tokina. I chose the later route. On the upper right hand corner of the first image, there's a little dark spot, that's part of the roof.
