# Wide Angle Lens - 16-28 F2.8 Tokina vs Canon 17-40 F4



## Mendolera (Jan 9, 2012)

G' Day All,

First time posting a new topic but wanted to get some advice if anyone wants to chime in. Ive been eyeing a couple WA's for months now. I had the 16-35 II in my shopping cart more then once now but decided against it as the extra cost savings in the following two lens will let me preorder the Mark III once available (Some budget concerns). Currently Im rocking my almost 4 year old XSi so I know the 10-22 would be better suited for it but like I said im making the full frame jump soon.

Im guessing a fair share of people on the forum have or have used the 17-40 but wondering if anyone has used the rather new Tokina and how they might compare. Prices are comparable new though the 17-40 has more of a used market currently. The Tokina doesnt accept filters which for me is a drawback but the extra stop makes it more appealing as I do anticipate the occasional handheld evening landscape shot.

Cheers


----------



## CowGummy (Jan 9, 2012)

I haven't used the Tokina, but love my 17-40 L! 
It was my walkaround lens on my 400D and I loved using it for landscape work. Now on my new 5Dii it's even wider on the 17mm end, which is a real bonus for landscape shots. Yeah, f/4 isn't exactly speedy, but I can't remember the last time I shot landscapes without a tripod...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2012)

Haven't used the Tokina, but photozone.de has reviewed it. Better than the Canon 16-35 II for distortion and vignetting, slightly better center resolution but the Canon is much better in the corners until both are stopped down to f/5.6, and the Canon is much better on CA. 

Canon is also weather sealed and takes filters. I use a B+W XS-Pro UV to complete the weather sealing, a B+W Käsemann CPL sometimes (at wider focal lengths, the sky is unevenly polarized), and a Schneider Optics (B+W's parent company) 10-stop ND for long exposures, especially helpful to eliminate people from shots. 82mm filters are expensive, but at least I can share the CPL and ND with my TS-E 24mm II. 

I definitely agree with the utility of f/2.8 for evening/night handheld shooting, especially with the high ISO capability of FF. Here's an example:




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM @ 27mm, 1/25 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200


----------



## thesocialturtle (Jan 9, 2012)

I took a long look at the Tokina which seems to rate very well optically and economically. The biggest downsides that I found were its a beast of a lens (quite heavy at 960g) and the glass design doesn't allow for a filter & has an unreliable lens cap. In the end for me, the weight was the barrier. I gave up both the 24-70L and the 15-55 EFS due to their weight and opted for a totally different camera combo for my medium range options.


----------



## Harles99 (Jan 9, 2012)

I have used the Tokina 16-28mm for about 8 months now, really love the lens. I use it with my 5D MK II for astrophotography time lapses. Not as much distortion/vignetting as as the Canon 16-35mm (rented for a long time). Its built very well, but doesn't have the weather sealing like the Canon. It is very heavy.

I have no experience with the Canon 17-40mm.


Sample Image with Tokina 16-28mm f2.8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harles99/5991121704/


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 9, 2012)

I almost bought the tokina, they have been good lenses for me. However, lots of buyers were complaining about QA issues, the lens must be very difficult to adjust to spec. Photozone noted the same thing.


----------



## TAR (Jan 9, 2012)

Hi,

After researching and lot of reading/reviews about 16-35 , 17-40 , i went with tokina 16-28. I can say that quality wise , very sharp. i also have samyang 14mm. it comes near to samyang. at 5.6 it is very sharp at 2.8 center is really sharp. but its really heavy ..build quality is very good. optically it beats both canon L lenses. compared to 17-40 - f 2.8 will be an added advantage . only disadvantage -no filters.

Regards,
TAR


----------



## firephasers (Aug 15, 2012)

I just acquired the Tokina AT-X 16-28, it's actually a pretty nice lens. As others have said, it is somewhat heavier than other lenses, but as far as build quality, I have absolutely no complaints. The first picture is a cell phone shot of the Tokina, with my 5DMKII. The front is a bit bulbous so as others have said...no filters. It does have a lens cap however that encompasses the entire front of the lens, so there are no worries about protecting the lens at all. The second shot is a photo taken with the lens at Caesar's Palace in Vegas...along with a little tweaking courtesy of Photomatix. I think I'm going to enjoy this new lens a lot. 




Mendolera said:


> G' Day All,
> 
> First time posting a new topic but wanted to get some advice if anyone wants to chime in. Ive been eyeing a couple WA's for months now. I had the 16-35 II in my shopping cart more then once now but decided against it as the extra cost savings in the following two lens will let me preorder the Mark III once available (Some budget concerns). Currently Im rocking my almost 4 year old XSi so I know the 10-22 would be better suited for it but like I said im making the full frame jump soon.
> 
> ...


----------

