The Tokina, by the way, has been superseded by a new 11-20 model that I haven't had a chance to test. If you are a pixel peeper and hold sharpness above all else, the Tokina would make you happier. If, on the other hand, you are going to shoot in light-challenged places (like wide angle close-in landscapes under canopy), then the Tokina is for you. I should not that it is unusually sharp wide open for a f/2.8 lens. I perceive 2 stops of real difference, which is pretty much countered by the ability of the Tokina to give you those two stops back via a wider aperture. The wider field of view makes IS a little less important. The IS was quite good, although don't expect to see the dramatic difference that you do with new Canon IS at the end of a super telephoto lens. If you are going to do hand-held shots of static subjects, the Canon is for probably you. The big difference between the lenses was the trade-off between aperture and IS. Tokina has a reputation for flare, but I didn't find that it flared any more than the Canon, and I was specifically looking for this stated weakness. But with the ultra-wides, I suppose this'll matter much less, as you're not generally cropping in with those sorts of shots. I often care about this, as I shoot wildlife, and I'm frequently cropping to a 1:1 ratio. That said, it was a bit pixel-peepish to find the differences. I MFA'd two cameras to both lenses in these tests, and it was pretty consistent. I found the 11-16 to be noticeably sharper with my copies. My father in law got the Canon, and I already owned the Tokina (be sure you're dealing with the version II of that lens, as it's much sharper). I had the opportunity to test these two lenses together at the same time. ![]() So, there you have it - choose your weapon. 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). 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. The Tokina has less range, more distortion, less vignetting (up to f/8), and more CA than the Canon. 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.Īnd 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. On the other hand, it seems tokina 11-16 has a good reputation of image quality, but it also has flaws like flare. 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.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |