16-35 f4 is or Tokina 16-28 or?

Hello everyone.

Apologies for what is probably a dumb and over asked question.....

I'm wanting to get a good quality wide angle.

I currently use a 6D but will be upgrading soon to either a 5DSR or possibly a 5D mk IV (whenever it is eventually released etc...)

I mistakenly bought a Sigma 12-24 mk ii a month or so ago (I say mistakenly, because I bought it online from Amazon when a little merry after a few glasses of wine). This Sigma, is both too wide for my liking and doesn't produce good enough quality images for me (even though I am merely an enthusiastic amateur photographer).

So I reckon my options are:

Canon 16-35 f4 is (the sensible choice)

Tokina 16-28 f2.8 (can be bought for a much cheaper price than the Canon f4)

or possibly a second hand Canon 16-35 f2.8 mk ii

I have a limited budget, and am attempting to juggle my camera equipment spending money, as best I can......so the possibility of the Tokina is tempting for that reason.

I'm hoping that this purchase will last me many years (which makes me lean towards the Canon f4)...

So....ladies and gentlemen.....please can you let me know what you think my best choice would be?

Thanking you all in advance for your time and consideration.

your options are one of 3 for landscape, ultrawide zoom, for great image quality

Canon 16-35 f4ISL

Tokina 16-28 2.8

Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC

each had pluses an minuses

Canon:  best range, probably the best QC, IS, smallest, lightest, fastest focusing, the only one that takes filters easily, best star burst. best flare characteristics.

Tamron: best for nightscapes and stars, not only b/c it has 2.8, but also b/c it has very little coma, and it goes out the widest.  I would not pic this lens, if you are planning not to shoot at 2.8, b/c its the bulkiest and haviest

Tokina 16-28.  Cheapest.  Most limited range, least weather sealed. optically probably slightly weaker than the other two, esp on the long end.

To me, unless you are shooting nightscapes, if you can afford it, the Canon is a no brainer.  In balance, I think its the best ultrawide zoom lens for landscape available (I would pick it over the amazing canon 11-24L, b/c of size, weight and use of filters, not to mention price).

Thank you for your reply.

Excuse my ignorance, so when shooting night skies/stars etc.....is 2.8 absolutely the best way to go? I am assuming because more light gets in (excuse my non-technical terminology)....and therefore I could use lower ISO's and therefore have cleaner (less noisy) images. Is this correct? It might well be a consideration for me.

Thanks again.

Owenmorris wrote:

Thank you for your reply.

Excuse my ignorance, so when shooting night skies/stars etc.....is 2.8 absolutely the best way to go? I am assuming because more light gets in (excuse my non-technical terminology)....and therefore I could use lower ISO's and therefore have cleaner (less noisy) images. Is this correct? It might well be a consideration for me.

Thanks again.

yes, however, its a little more complicated than that.  faster is better, and some use primes, such as new sigma 20 1.4 lens. However, the unique situation is when moving objects are involved in your night skies, specifically stars.  Stars move in the sky much like the sun does (due to earths rotation).  depending on how wide you are shooting you may get away with exposures as long as 20 seconds, and still not get a "star trail" at 15-20mm.  to get proper exposure at this relatively short times, at iso 1600-3200, you do often need at least a 2.8 lens.

another option is getting and astrotacker, which you mount your camera on, and essentially it compensates for rotation of the earth.  there you have to shoot a separate shot for the non sky portion of your shot, and then blend the two.

If you are interested in shooting nightscapes with stars, and you want a zoom, you simply cant beat the tamron for quality.  if budget is an issue, both the tokina 16-28, as well as the samyang 14 2.8 are good opitons.

Thank you for your detailed reply (which told me things, such as the tracker gadget, that I'd never even heard existed before!).

I have thinking and researching needing doing.

Thanks again. I appreciate it.

I have the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 and the Rokinon (same as Samyang) 14mm f2.8 prime. I like the Tokina overall, my only gripe would be the rainbow flare that shows up when a very bright light source is in frame. Several older lenses and film lenses do this, but not the newer DSLR lenses (better coatings I expect). I bought it just before the 16-35 f4 L IS came out because the Tokina compares well to the 16-35 f2.8 L II that I've had a chance to use and is far less expensive. I don't use the ultra wide angle very often, so it still seems a good fit for me, though I wouldn't kick the 16-35 f4 L IS out of my bag.

If money is no object, and you want a great general use ultra wide, I agree that the 16-35 f4L IS is the best option out there. For nightscapes I really like the Rokinon 14mm f2.8, and it's quite hard to beat for the price, got mine on sale for 250$ this past Christmas. The Rokinon is sharper across the frame at f2.8 with less coma, so it's better suited for this task.

I did some interior HDR stuff this past summer and used the Tokina, which was great, but note that the thing is a beast, very solid in build and heavy. So it's really about what you need. I generally grab the Rokinon prime these days for trips where I have to carry the gear around.