Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2,175

    Tokina 11-16 vs. Canon 10-22 and Tokina 12-24

    Has anybody given the Tokina 11-16 a spin? How does it compare to the other good offerings in this range?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    i have one but havent had the opportunity to use it yet. the tokina 12-24 is at least equal to, if not better than the canon 10-22 anyway so i would imagine the 11-16 will blow it out of the water.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    the tokina 12-24 is at least equal to, if not better than the canon 10-22 anyway
    Only at some things.
    Ouch.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    yes true. i believe the canon is a better paperweight.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    USM blows Micro-motor focusing out of the water. 10mm is wider than 12mm. f/3.5 is faster than f/4. The Canon focuses closer. The Tokina is the demon spawn mother of fringing.

    EF-S lenses don't make very good paperweights (they don't weigh enough). The Tokina is heavier so better for that.
    Last edited by cdifoto; 06-12-2008 at 10:39 PM.
    Ouch.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    lol true, the tokina is built like a tank so indeed, it would be a better paperweight...so yet another thing it has over the overpriced and underdelivering canon version.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Great White North
    Posts
    1,313
    I had a Canon 10-22 for a while. If wide angle is your thing, this lens will not disappoint.
    The respect of those you respect is greater than the applause of the multitude.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    I've never owned the Canon, but I did own the Tokina 12-24. I was very happy with the Tokina. It does have fringing, but I never found it to be too horrible and PP would remove it nicely. I did find the focus to be a little slow on it, but how often do you need super fast focus on an ultra-wide? It's built like a tank, was wide enough for for all my needs, in fact too wide in a lot of cases, and the images were as good as my L lenses.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    Yes, the Tokina 12-24 is a nice lens. I had one. But that doesn't mean the Canon 10-22 is udder cwap as proposed by Mr. Rooz.
    Ouch.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560
    Personally, I'm waiting for TAMRON to let the SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di-II LD out of its cage. Wider, brighter than most ... hoo hah ... let's go.

    Name:  tamron_10-24-001.jpg
Views: 9934
Size:  75.3 KB
    Last edited by DonSchap; 06-15-2008 at 06:26 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •