Tokina 16-28 f/2.8

[Jim Victory]

Just recently picked up the new Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 for Canon mount. I found it to be very sharp throughout the focus range on both the 5D MKII and 1DMK3.The sharpness is very similiar to what I get from the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II wide open @f/2.8.

It is noticeably sharper wide open than several copies of the 16-35 F/2.8L IS II I have owned. That sharpness continues across the frame compared to some drop off with the 16-35. IQ wise it is equal to or better than the 16-35 at half the price. I didn't really notice any difference in AF speed.

I rarely shoot WA but I wanted something that could be used in low light wide open if necessary without breaking the bank. There is some aspects of the Tokina that may not be suitable to others but my main concern was IQ so those aspects didn't matter.

1. The Tokina is larger and heavier than the 16-35. Primarily a result of it being built like a tank.
2. The AF to MF mechanism may not be your cup of tea. It is a push/pull design.
3. The zoom ring turns in the opposite direction of most Canon zooms.
4.The zoom range is shorter than the 16-35. Probably how they were able to maintain the sharpness throughout the range.
5. Finally the Tokina has a bulbous front element like the Nikon 14-24 and won't accept a filter. This may be the deal breaker for most but I don't use it in conditions where a filter is necessary.

I had hesitated buying this lens because of some of the reviews I read online about inconsistent IQ between copies. I'm glad I went ahead and tried it because it is a stellar lens.

[groovyone]

In the Pixtus Amazon Store: Pixtus.com: Photography: Tokina AT-X Pro FX 16-28mm f/2.8 For Canon

[Shadow]

I'm not surprised the it's a winner, as the very content owner of Tokina's 11-16mm F2.8 for Nikon. Not a huge fan of the AF/MF switch mechanism, because it's easy to forget about and doesn't lock. Otherwise it's a superb lens that Nikon doesn't make an equivalent for.

[Patti Edens]

I've been looking for a wide angle and I was considering the Canon 16-35, but heard too many bad reviews of it. This one sounds good. Jim, I'm glad you mentioned that it works okay on your 1DMK3. I don't have a full frame cam, so I will be using it on a MK4. So, it will be about a 21mm in 35mm equivalent which will work for me.

Thanks for the Amazon link Keith. Ordered one this am.

[groovyone]

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

I've been looking for a wide angle and I was considering the Canon 16-35, but heard too many bad reviews of it. This one sounds good. Jim, I'm glad you mentioned that it works okay on your 1DMK3. I don't have a full frame cam, so I will be using it on a MK4. So, it will be about a 21mm in 35mm equivalent which will work for me.

Thanks for the Amazon link Keith. Ordered one this am.

Nice! Keep us posted and feel free to add to the review with your thoughts on the lens.

[Patti Edens]

I haven't spent enough time with the lens to really test it out, but I was pleased with some photos I took around the house as far as sharpness and color rendition.

But, I put it to the test last night on a night shoot. I don't know if I'm expecting too much or what but it flares a heck of a lot worse than even my crummy kit lens. I guess because of all that glass - 15 elements. It is one heavy lens.

And check this photo and the crop below it




What is that? Some kind of chromatic aberration superimposed on lens flare or is that just lens flare? Whatever it is, I don't like it.


I will be doing more testing ...

[Snarfy]

rainbow ghosts!! you might have oil on your aperture blades

[JWCustomPhotography]

I just got mine when they popped up available here recently. I love it. I was about to just buy a 16-35, I had rented one and loved it, but the the tokina I love much more, except I get a little more lens flare or ca out of it.

I find the small amount of zoom handy but if it was an 11 prime I wouldn't complain.

I haven't tried to slap a filter on it yet, so now I'm nervous my cp won't fit.

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by JWCustomPhotography

I just got mine when they popped up available here recently. I love it. I was about to just buy a 16-35, I had rented one and loved it, but the the tokina I love much more, except I get a little more lens flare or ca out of it.

I find the small amount of zoom handy but if it was an 11 prime I wouldn't complain.

I haven't tried to slap a filter on it yet, so now I'm nervous my cp won't fit.

It won't take filters - That was one of the down sides and reasons to save up for the 16 - 35.

This is what Rockwell (I know, I know...) says:

"With Canon, our choices aren't so clear.

Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is a much lighter lens with a broader zoom range in a smaller package that also takes filters.

As a Canon shooter, size, weight and the ability to use filters are very important to me, so I'd pass on this Tokina and save for the Canon 16-35mm II. It is always a good idea to spend what you want on lenses, since they will serve you for years to come."

More of his review here: Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 Review

I disagree with a lot of what he says, but in this case, I am tending to agree. I'm still on the fence about whether or not to keep it.

p

[JWCustomPhotography]

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

It won't take filters - That was one of the down sides and reasons to save up for the 16 - 35.

This is what Rockwell (I know, I know...) says:

"With Canon, our choices aren't so clear.

Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is a much lighter lens with a broader zoom range in a smaller package that also takes filters.

As a Canon shooter, size, weight and the ability to use filters are very important to me, so I'd pass on this Tokina and save for the Canon 16-35mm II. It is always a good idea to spend what you want on lenses, since they will serve you for years to come."

More of his review here: Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 Review

I disagree with a lot of what he says, but in this case, I am tending to agree. I'm still on the fence about whether or not to keep it.

p

Of all the reviews and everything I read (including kens) I dont know how I missed that. We shall see.

For me not using filters is pretty significant but still not a deal breaker... Yet. I shot a show last night that some of the images looked a little OOF in camera, but it might have just been me and not the lens.

I'm still very happy with it, and enjoy the wider 11mm to the 16 of the canon.

[Patti Edens]

Originally Posted by Snarfy

rainbow ghosts!! you might have oil on your aperture blades

Eeeek. I hope not. I thought that was just in old lenses. Don't they use some type of silicone now that won't do that? I dunno.

[JWCustomPhotography]

I was sitting here this morning thinking about all this...

My CP filter fits just fine on my 11-16

have you tried filters on yours?

Originally Posted by Patti Edens

It won't take filters - That was one of the down sides and reasons to save up for the 16 - 35.

This is what Rockwell (I know, I know...) says:

"With Canon, our choices aren't so clear.

Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is a much lighter lens with a broader zoom range in a smaller package that also takes filters.

As a Canon shooter, size, weight and the ability to use filters are very important to me, so I'd pass on this Tokina and save for the Canon 16-35mm II. It is always a good idea to spend what you want on lenses, since they will serve you for years to come."

More of his review here: Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 Review

I disagree with a lot of what he says, but in this case, I am tending to agree. I'm still on the fence about whether or not to keep it.

p

[Jake]

Originally Posted by JWCustomPhotography

I was sitting here this morning thinking about all this...

My CP filter fits just fine on my 11-16

have you tried filters on yours?

I think the no filter comment is about the 16-28mm not the 11-16. You can't put a filter on the 16-28.

[JWCustomPhotography]

Originally Posted by Jake

I think the no filter comment is about the 16-28mm not the 11-16. You can't put a filter on the 16-28.

Thanks for setting me straight!

Maybe I should just go back to bed.

[Patti Edens]

I just returned from Big Bend where I used the lens quite a bit. It performed well in the daytime, but it really does not handle stray light very well. Some of the night photos were filled with strange light orbs and streaks. My kit lens on my 50D performed better than this lens on my MkIV at night. I shoot a lot at night, so I am returning the lens. I guess I'll either go for a Canon 17 - 40 or save a bit more for the 16 - 35.