Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L?

Started Nov 9, 2012 | Discussions
SwampYankee Forum Member • Posts: 68
Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L?

Just moved to FF and am missing my Tokina 11-16DX 2.8, a great wide angle zoom.  I'd like to replace teh lens with a wide angle zoom.  Advanced amateur  not a pro.  I'm deciding between a Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L.  The size of the Tokina doesn't matter much and my walk around is a 24-105L so the extra range of the Canon isn't necessary   The Canon cost almost twice as much.  Is it that much better than the Tokina?

thanks

berze Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L?

I rented the Canon for a crop body once. Colors & contrast were amazing, I wouldn't hesitate for a second if I were you (I have the Tokina also).

ed rader Veteran Member • Posts: 8,154
Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L?

Sounds like you are sold on the to Tokina.  The range, weather sealing, superb optical quality and all that jazz does matter to me and the 16-35l II is a lens I'd never be without.

 ed rader's gear list:ed rader's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sigma 15mm F2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM +2 more
ulmer Regular Member • Posts: 285
IMO, go with the Tokina

In my opinion, the Tokina is the way to go. As long as you can live without the ability to use screw-in filters, it's really nice. Stopped down to f5.6 or greater, it's almost completely sharp all the way to the corners on my 5D III. Way better than my old Canon 17-40mm and from what I've seen, should be sharper than the Canon 16-35mm too. They did a great job with this lens.

I took it to Glacier National Park to break it in and loved it.

 ulmer's gear list:ulmer's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Nikon D850 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro Olympus 7-14mm F2.8 Pro +10 more
Kevin Jorgensen Contributing Member • Posts: 745
Re: IMO, go with the Tokina

ulmer wrote:

In my opinion, the Tokina is the way to go. As long as you can live without the ability to use screw-in filters, it's really nice. Stopped down to f5.6 or greater, it's almost completely sharp all the way to the corners on my 5D III. Way better than my old Canon 17-40mm and from what I've seen, should be sharper than the Canon 16-35mm too. They did a great job with this lens.

I took it to Glacier National Park to break it in and loved it.

Are you telling us these shots are better than ''what you've seen'' out of a 16-35f2.8L II? Really?

 Kevin Jorgensen's gear list:Kevin Jorgensen's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +2 more
lighthunter80
lighthunter80 Regular Member • Posts: 474
Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L?
1

I use a few L primes and the 16-35L II is my only zoom. Its center sharpness, fast Af and low distortion are just amazing. I thought about getting the Tokina as well but it is just not a as good designed in terms of compactness and filter usage. It is not even much cheaper. With the L you have weather sealing as well.

I think compared to my other lenses the 16-35L looks pretty good. The only minor con I see is the not 100% perfect corner sharpness. Unfortunately even most primes are not better (at least not Canon). The only alternative I figured out was the 17T-SE or the new Zeiss 15 2.8 which are both significantly better in corner sharpness but also much more expensive and without AF.

So I ended up with the 16-35L and am very happy with the package.

 lighthunter80's gear list:lighthunter80's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 6D Olympus PEN E-P5 Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM +6 more
JEHE Forum Member • Posts: 87
Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L?

SwampYankee wrote:

Just moved to FF and am missing my Tokina 11-16DX 2.8, a great wide angle zoom. I'd like to replace teh lens with a wide angle zoom. Advanced amateur not a pro. I'm deciding between a Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L. The size of the Tokina doesn't matter much and my walk around is a 24-105L so the extra range of the Canon isn't necessary The Canon cost almost twice as much. Is it that much better than the Tokina?

thanks

I used the 16-35L for a few years, sold it, really missed the focal lenth, doubted between the Canon and the Tokina, decided to go for the Tokina.
Don't regret it. It is a lot cheaper than the Canon and at least as sharp. You may find the manual focus cluth annoying, and I noticed that in low light, using live view, the autofocus hunts more than the Canon. But distortion is less than with the Canon. So there are pro's and con's. If price is not an issue, and it is used mainly for landscapes where distortion does not matter that much, go for the Canon. If price is an issue, don't hesitate and buy the tokina. It is a great lens.
To answer your question: the Canon absolutely is not twice as good as the Tokina.

-- hide signature --

Jeroen

 JEHE's gear list:JEHE's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR Fujifilm XF 16mm F1.4 R WR Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR
ulmer Regular Member • Posts: 285
Re: IMO, go with the Tokina

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

ulmer wrote:

In my opinion, the Tokina is the way to go. As long as you can live without the ability to use screw-in filters, it's really nice. Stopped down to f5.6 or greater, it's almost completely sharp all the way to the corners on my 5D III. Way better than my old Canon 17-40mm and from what I've seen, should be sharper than the Canon 16-35mm too. They did a great job with this lens.

I took it to Glacier National Park to break it in and loved it.

Are you telling us these shots are better than ''what you've seen'' out of a 16-35f2.8L II? Really?

I'm saying that, based on the reviews and sample photos I've seen from the 16-35 and my first hand experience with the Tokina, the Tokina is at least as sharp in the center of the frame and very noticeably sharper in the corners.

 ulmer's gear list:ulmer's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Nikon D850 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro Olympus 7-14mm F2.8 Pro +10 more
Qwntm Veteran Member • Posts: 6,161
Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L?

JEHE wrote:

SwampYankee wrote:

Just moved to FF and am missing my Tokina 11-16DX 2.8, a great wide angle zoom. I'd like to replace teh lens with a wide angle zoom. Advanced amateur not a pro. I'm deciding between a Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L. The size of the Tokina doesn't matter much and my walk around is a 24-105L so the extra range of the Canon isn't necessary The Canon cost almost twice as much. Is it that much better than the Tokina?

thanks

I used the 16-35L for a few years, sold it, really missed the focal lenth, doubted between the Canon and the Tokina, decided to go for the Tokina.
Don't regret it. It is a lot cheaper than the Canon and at least as sharp. You may find the manual focus cluth annoying, and I noticed that in low light, using live view, the autofocus hunts more than the Canon. But distortion is less than with the Canon. So there are pro's and con's. If price is not an issue, and it is used mainly for landscapes where distortion does not matter that much, go for the Canon. If price is an issue, don't hesitate and buy the tokina. It is a great lens.
To answer your question: the Canon absolutely is not twice as good as the Tokina.

-- hide signature --

Jeroen

And Arnold Palmer is not tice as good a golfer as I am, heck he only beats my game by 15 strokes out of 100 so he's less than 15% better than me...

(Lol. I'm lying about the 100 stroke game actually, but it makes the point. )

-- hide signature --

Edward
www.youtube.com/photouniverse
www.edwardthomasart.com
www.pbase.com/edwardthomas

 Qwntm's gear list:Qwntm's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Pentax K-5 IIs Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) +8 more
Gridley Forum Member • Posts: 70
Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L?

As can be seen by the replies already posted to this thread, both of these are fine lenses.

The Tokina is cheaper, heavier, (arguably sharper), and unable to accept (easily) filters. The Canon is more expensive, weatherproof, accepts filters, and has it's own issues.

Bottom line. I don't think you'll find a perfect wide zoom. It is all about compromise.

Either of these lenses are capable of making stunning images. The more I get into the art of photography, the more I realize how much larger my contribution is than the equipment I shoot. (not to minimize the importance of understanding your kit).

IMHO, you can't go wrong with either. I shoot with the Tokina, primarily because of the cost benefit ratio. Only you can answer the value question as it relates to your situation.

G

Jostian
Jostian Senior Member • Posts: 2,744
Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L?

the Tokina is weather sealed and according to DxO mark (I know its not the be and end all but still...) the Tokina is sharper, gets a rating of 15 for sharpness and the Canon gets 12 or 13... I would go for the Tokina, I had the 11 to 16 f2.8 on my Nikon and it was sublime...

-- hide signature --

Jostian

 Jostian's gear list:Jostian's gear list
Sony RX10 II Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 Tamron SP 45mm F1.8 Di VC USD +2 more
Gunzorro Senior Member • Posts: 1,889
Re: Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX or Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L?

I've never used the Tokina and I own the Canon. I've seen several comparisons, but I remain unconvinced the Tokina is as good overall, at least for my use. I can't judge if Canon is twice as good based on price (I doubt that), but I was happy be able to buy in it and know I could send to CPS at any time for repair or adjustment with quick turnaround.

I've seen some very nice photos posted from the Tokina, so if it were a financial choice determining whether I had that focal range or not, then the Tokina looks considerably better!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads