Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8

[lkkang]

Any thoughts about this lens vs the canon 10-22mm? The canon has a wider range, but it's f/3.5-4.5, and around $150 more expensive. I don't have any lens wider than 28mm so the wider range of the canon is tempting but so is the f2.8 of the tokina!

well, tough comparison...

This is only personal comment. The reson I do not choose canon 10-20mm is because of the distortion. The distortion is not so easily corrected in computer because it is rather "no distortion" at the center and then curve at the edges.

If you correct the distortion in the computer , it normally gives you a linear curve correction. And it is almost impossible to get back a straight line in post possessing. At least for me.

Other than that, Yes, canon does gives you better range. but not as bright f3.5-4.5.
Color reproduction and sharpness wise, both are good.

you have to decide.

 

[doodah]

The reson I do not choose canon 10-20mm is because of the distortion. The distortion is not so easily corrected in computer because it is rather "no distortion" at the center and then curve at the edges.

Huh??? Are you confusing the Canon 10-22 with Nikon 12-24? From several reviews, Canon 10-22 has very little distortion unlike the Nikon equivalent whose wavy distortion is hard to correct.

From http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm:
"The Canon 10-22mm has much less distortion than any wide zoom I've tested, which means it's much better than my Nikon 12-24mm., much better then the Tamron 11-18mm, much better than the Tokina 12-24mm and much better than the Sigma 10-20mm, period. No contest: compare the numbers in my wide digital zoom comparison. It's also much better than the Canon 17-40mm L and 16-35mm L used on full frame digital and film cameras. Bravo!"

See also:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...-f4g-if-ed-dx-lab-test-report--review?start=1
and
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...0-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1

Tokina 11-16 is just as good as Canon 10-22 when it comes to distortion. From http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm:
"It has barrel distortion at the shortest end, flattening out at the longer end. The great news is that the distortion is very simple and easy to correct with Photoshop CS2's lens distortion filter. This is far better than my Nikon 12-24mm, whose complex distortion has always required fancier tools like DxO"

 

[lkkang]

Huh??? Are you confusing the Canon 10-22 with Nikon 12-24? From several reviews, Canon 10-22 has very little distortion unlike the Nikon equivalent whose wavy distortion is hard to correct.

From http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm:
"The Canon 10-22mm has much less distortion than any wide zoom I've tested, which means it's much better than my Nikon 12-24mm., much better then the Tamron 11-18mm, much better than the Tokina 12-24mm and much better than the Sigma 10-20mm, period. No contest: compare the numbers in my wide digital zoom comparison. It's also much better than the Canon 17-40mm L and 16-35mm L used on full frame digital and film cameras. Bravo!"

See also:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-...-f4g-if-ed-dx-lab-test-report--review?start=1
and
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...0-22mm-f35-45-usm-test-report--review?start=1

Tokina 11-16 is just as good as Canon 10-22 when it comes to distortion. From http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm:
"It has barrel distortion at the shortest end, flattening out at the longer end. The great news is that the distortion is very simple and easy to correct with Photoshop CS2's lens distortion filter. This is far better than my Nikon 12-24mm, whose complex distortion has always required fancier tools like DxO"

you may be right.

I have not tested so many lens before. I am currently using a Sigma 12-24mm , and only tried canon 10-20mm for few times ( friend's lens ). I only make the statement based on what I see from the pictures ( not from specifications ), so.... the remarks made is just personal only... my apologies if I have confused someone.

Thanks for contributing the facts here, appricated. :thumbsup:

 

[Lenscapes]

went to J316 and they don't have canon mount.

 

[pckee]

went to J316 and they don't have canon mount.

Maybe you all can contact him http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=370620

 

[Lenscapes]

Maybe you all can contact him http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=370620

ok thanks!

 

[ZeroDivine]

hw much is this lens selling for?
and do they have nikon mt in stock ?

 

[doodah]

hw much is this lens selling for?
and do they have nikon mt in stock ?

It is selling for $888 at MS Color. It is currently sold out for both Nikon and Canon mounts.

 

[lkkang]

hw much is this lens selling for?
and do they have nikon mt in stock ?

sorry, I side track a bit... your shots are fantestic :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[ZeroDivine]

It is selling for $888 at MS Color. It is currently sold out for both Nikon and Canon mounts.

hmm $888 seems quite affordable. really thinking of offloading my sigma 10-20 haha. The wide end only lose 1mm, and 16 and 20 not that much diff, but i reckon the tokina is much sharper and 2.8 is to die for.

sorry, I side track a bit... your shots are fantestic :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

wow thank u so much for the comment lkkang :embrass:

 

[doodah]

The wide end only lose 1mm, and 16 and 20 not that much diff, but i reckon the tokina is much sharper and 2.8 is to die for.

Actually, there is a world of difference between 16 and 20 mm. At wide angles, EVERY mm counts. At telephoto distances, only differences of 100 mm matter.

 

[entropy_h]

hmm $888 seems quite affordable. really thinking of offloading my sigma 10-20 haha. The wide end only lose 1mm, and 16 and 20 not that much diff, but i reckon the tokina is much sharper and 2.8 is to die for.



wow thank u so much for the comment lkkang :embrass:

$850 from SerialSnapper makes it even more affordable.

I'm still debating whether I want to get this, or the Sigma 10-20. From what I've gathered, 1mm at the wide end makes quite a bit of difference too.

Anyway, like someone else mentioned, great pictures you've taken. And if you're gonna get the Tokina, and want to offload the Sigma, let me know. I would like to be first in line, ha.

 

[entropy_h]

Actually, there is a world of difference between 16 and 20 mm. At wide angles, EVERY mm counts. At telephoto distances, only differences of 100 mm matter.

To emphasize your point, I plugged this into a FOV calculator (thanks to night86mare for suggesting this):

Field Of View Table
Camera Type : Nikon D80
Sensor Size : 23.6mm x 15.8mm
Pixel Size : 6.05µm

Focal Length X Size Y Size Sampling

10 99.448° 76.623° 124.790
11 94.026° 71.376° 113.446
12 89.044° 66.721° 103.992

Units in decimal degrees, and sampling rate (not too sure what this conveys) is in arcseconds per pixel.

 

[Rez_pt]

wahh damn tempted...
should I unload my tokina 12-24 and get this one? ;p

 

[lkkang]

If you are using 1D camera, the following picture might be useful to you. It seems that this lens is able to usable from 12mm onwards if you are going to use this lens on a 1.3factor camera body ( like me ).

Here, I have tried to superimpose an image from "KenRockwell.com" and scale the sensor size ration picture together. My scaling might not be 100% accurate, but should be resonably close enough.

Hence, this lens is like 12-16mm to me :bsmilie:

 

[lkkang]

 

[calebk]

Hmm, at 12mm there still looks to be obvious vignetting. Looks completely usable from 13mm. At that rate, a 13-16mm zoom is like...:think:

 

[lkkang]

Hmm, at 12mm there still looks to be obvious vignetting. Looks completely usable from 13mm. At that rate, a 13-16mm zoom is like...:think:

:bsmilie: more like a prime lens.

 

[calebk]

:bsmilie: more like a prime lens.

But still, way cheaper than the 14mm f/2.8L II, so it's something to be considered...

Just wondering whether for events usage, it's better to get something a little more versatile like a 16-35 or 17-40. 13-16 is seriously...a prime. Haha.

 

[lkkang]

But still, way cheaper than the 14mm f/2.8L II, so it's something to be considered...

Just wondering whether for events usage, it's better to get something a little more versatile like a 16-35 or 17-40. 13-16 is seriously...a prime. Haha.

talking about event shoots. I recently got a paid job for shooting an event for a company. I was using the Sigma 12-24mm most of the time. Because this lens is not so sharp wide open, and that the biggest possible aperture is F4.5-5.6. I wasn't very happy with the results of this lens for this event. Lots of post processing work needs to be done at the later stage.

This Sigma 12-24mm is better for those non-event shoots, like architecture, landscapes etc. where you set the aperture to very small and distortion is kept to very minimum.

for events, I would recommend the 16-35mm Mk2 ( if you pocket is deep enough :bsmilie: ). Else, 17-40 is still able to do the job, still a sharp lens.. but distortion is a little bit more. I have seen a friend of mine shooting a company D&D throughout using a 17-40mm on 5D, results is very fantestic :thumbsup: It is also a matter of controlling your flash and ISO settings.

For event shoots, I feel that it is a "must" to get zoom lens, because you are trying to capture moments or instance which occured during this event, this happenings can only occur like 10sec or so.... do you think you can swap lens and get everything ready in 10seconds ? I don't think so.