Canon 10-18 vs Tokina 11-16, which one is better?

EricJung wrote:

Canon 10-18 must be a good qualified ultra wide lense for crop, but there is another critical review about "poor" sharpness of this lense.

On the other hand, it seems tokina 11-16 has a good reputation of image quality, but it also has flaws like flare.

So i'm slightly confused which one is better choice about image quality, color rendering, low distortion, overall sharpness, etc, regardless of price and weight.

And does tokina 116 has too much contrast or deep color? I'm also care about this, because I don't like too much contrast and unnatural color rendering.

The Tokina has less range, more distortion, less vignetting (up to f/8), and more CA than the Canon.  Both are about the same sharpness.  And while the Canon has IS, the Tokina is two stops faster, but weighs twice as much, and takes a 77mm filter while the Canon takes a 67mm filter.   Lastly, if you are patient and willing, you can get the Canon for around $200 used or as a refurb (don't know about the Tokina).

So, there you have it -- choose your weapon. 

Thanks for your reply

Are you sure both lenses are about same sharpness? If then, I'll pick the cannon without hesitation.

But someone says there is remarkably different sharpness between two lenses, especially at the corners. So I can't decide easily.

EricJung wrote:

Thanks for your reply

Are you sure both lenses are about same sharpness? If then, I'll pick the cannon without hesitation.

But someone says there is remarkably different sharpness between two lenses, especially at the corners. So I can't decide easily.

Check the links I gave in the reply -- they give the resolution measurements.  That said, I don't know how close to the corners the "extreme edge" measurement is on the Photozone tests.

My copy of the 10-18 is corner sharp, even wide open. You can download some sample pics here : www.p5freak.de/10-18.zip Amazing lens, if you dont mind the slow aperture.

Thank you for your advice.

I'll check the link you noticed.

Actually I doubt if I use UWA lense frequently under the common circumstances, so it can be wiser to use budget lense in this case.

Thank you for your help. I'll check the sample.

Don't you feel 10-18 is inconvenient at night or lightless condition?

Thank you for your experiential advice. I use sigma 18-35 art lense like you

Anyway, my main subject is my child who is moving and running constantly, so it's more important to me to control motion-blur of the subject by getting fast shutter speed.

If then, is the tokina more suitable for me?

EricJung wrote:

Canon 10-18 must be a good qualified ultra wide lense for crop, but there is another critical review about "poor" sharpness of this lense.

On the other hand, it seems tokina 11-16 has a good reputation of image quality, but it also has flaws like flare.

So i'm slightly confused which one is better choice about image quality, color rendering, low distortion, overall sharpness, etc, regardless of price and weight.

And does tokina 116 has too much contrast or deep color? I'm also care about this, because I don't like too much contrast and unnatural color rendering.

I own the Tokina 11-16 DX II. Yes the Canon is suppose to be better flare resistant, less CA and distortion but after a few thousand shots I have never encountered any real problems. If your shooting foliage wide open in daytime light then you may encounter CA, if your stopping the lens down then it really is a non issue. Any small amounts of CA can easily be taken care of in lightroom.

The Canon 10-18 is by no means poor in regards to sharpness, but the Tokina is marginally sharper. Colour rendering is a personal choice, many prefer the Canon, personally I prefer those of the Tokina which is why I picked it. Your best bet is to look through the groups on flickr and see which you prefer the look of.

The Tokina has the advantage of being a 2.8 lens, which is a big benefit if your in to astro photography, the 10-18 has IS if you like handheld shooting in low light (a tripod will make much more difference to the sharpness) otherwise you can't go far wrong with either. Below are a few shots from the Tokina.

TigTillinghast wrote:

Other notes:

- I use my 11-16 on full frame at the 16mm setting, and I don't get too much vignetting. I did not test the Canon on that, as I didn't have full frame when I had access to it.

FYI, since the Canon is an EF-S mount lens, it will not mount on a FF Canon body. I know that someone here on dpreview did modify the mount of the lens to fit it to use on FF but I forget the end result. I do remember he was able to use it on FF for at least part of the FL.

Spotted Cow wrote:

TigTillinghast wrote:

Other notes:

- I use my 11-16 on full frame at the 16mm setting, and I don't get too much vignetting. I did not test the Canon on that, as I didn't have full frame when I had access to it.

FYI, since the Canon is an EF-S mount lens, it will not mount on a FF Canon body. I know that someone here on dpreview did modify the mount of the lens to fit it to use on FF but I forget the end result. I do remember he was able to use it on FF for at least part of the FL.

The 10-18mm can be used without any vignetting on FF after modification, from 14mm or so to 18mm.. It will, however, always have soft corners, also stopped down and at 18mm. I suspect it will work fine with Soligor's 1.7x TC or a 1.4x TC from Kenko. Can't test that, because my 10-18mm is with a friend of mine at the moment.

Thak you for your advice.

EricJung wrote:

Thank you for your help. I'll check the sample.

Don't you feel 10-18 is inconvenient at night or lightless condition?

No, it has IS, which compensates its slower aperture.

EricJung wrote:

Thank you for your experiential advice. I use sigma 18-35 art lense like you

Anyway, my main subject is my child who is moving and running constantly, so it's more important to me to control motion-blur of the subject by getting fast shutter speed.

If then, is the tokina more suitable for me?

The Tokina would be better in this regard as it will allow you to use a faster shutter speed. But i'm curious why you want a UWA for your child? Isn't your 18-35 wide enough? Portraits can be taken at any focal length, but the wider the lens the more distortion and less flattering the portrait will be.

Below is a good example:

http://gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how-lenses-beautify-or-uglify-your-pretty-face

Yes, I already know the distortion of WA and the sigma 18-35mm does a good job in most situations. After I used the sigma 30mm for quite a while, I traded it off to add versatility and convenience of slightly wide angle at F1.8. And so far so good. I thnk it's the unique part of this lense for the crop users. It covers standard & slightly wide angle fast.

But sometimes I feel lack of ultra wide angle especially during my trips, actually not very often. So I want to add UWA lense for the trip and landscape photo, and I also wonder the feature of UWA lenses.

Well, I thnk I'll use UWA lense sometimes, but not very often, so I think it'll be wiser to use budget lenses like the canon 10-18mm.

But if the 10-18 has a really poor image quality, then I think I should go with another lense, so I asked about the comparison