Gear Talk > Lenses

Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 vs. Canon EF 17-40mm F4

(1/5) > >>

R1-7D:
I'm thinking about purchasing either one of these lenses. I have read reviews on both, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. I also did a search on this forum for information, but I am just seeing if anything has changed regarding the Tokina and if more people are using it now.

Does anyone have any experience or recommendations with purchasing either one of these lenses?


Marsu42:

--- Quote from: R1-7D on February 01, 2013, 12:59:11 PM ---Does anyone have any experience or recommendations with purchasing either one of these lenses?

--- End quote ---

Well, w/o any information about what you plan to shoot this is a little fuzzy - but I'm a happy new 17-40L owner, it is sturdy/sealed, inexpensive (for a L lens), has a wide zoom range vs. changing lenses and has good performance if stopping down.

I wouldn't buy the Tokina because it doesn't take simple protection/polarizer/nd screw-in filters, the 77mm 17-40L can even be fitted with 82mm filters with a stop-up adapter since the Canon lens caps I own are designed to take 1 step larger filters (67->77 & 77->82).

R1-7D:
I'd be using the lens for landscapes and architecture.

I have filters on all my lenses currently, but I'm not opposed to the bulbous front end of the Tokina. I'm very careful and I am sure I can make do without a filter.

Thanks for your reply.

The thing that is so tempting about the 17-40mm is that, as you have pointed out, it is quite cheap for an L lens. I can buy a good used copy and invest the rest of the money saved into something else I like. The Tokina is about $200-300 more expensive.

Marsu42:

--- Quote from: R1-7D on February 01, 2013, 01:41:38 PM ---The thing that is so tempting about the 17-40mm is that, as you have pointed out, it is quite cheap for an L lens. I can buy a good used copy and invest the rest of the money saved into something else I like.

--- End quote ---

My thought exactly - though I ended up buying a new 17-40L because the used ones were too expensive (€600 new, €500 used) and this lens line is known to contain duds with decentering and other issues, I had to exchange my first copy.

sagittariansrock:

--- Quote from: R1-7D on February 01, 2013, 01:41:38 PM ---I'd be using the lens for landscapes and architecture.

I have filters on all my lenses currently, but I'm not opposed to the bulbous front end of the Tokina. I'm very careful and I am sure I can make do without a filter.

Thanks for your reply.

The thing that is so tempting about the 17-40mm is that, as you have pointed out, it is quite cheap for an L lens. I can buy a good used copy and invest the rest of the money saved into something else I like. The Tokina is about $200-300 more expensive.

--- End quote ---

I think that would be the most important consideration for me. If it were not for the bulbous front element, I'd be the proud owner of the Tokina today. I didn't love the sharpness of the 17-40 and sold it- on the other hand the Tokina was very good.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version