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

[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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

[R1-7D]

Well I purchased the Tokina This afternoon. I've only shot around the house so far, but I'm really enjoying it. I'm going out with a friend in about an hour to take some shots of the industrial part of town. I'll report back. So far it seems like a pretty nice Lens though.

[sagittariansrock]

Well I purchased the Tokina This afternoon. I've only shot around the house so far, but I'm really enjoying it. I'm going out with a friend in about an hour to take some shots of the industrial part of town. I'll report back. So far it seems like a pretty nice Lens though.

Congrats

[John Thomas]

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.

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.

There are filters for Tokina. See here:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/12/06/Fotodiox-launches-WonderPana-Filter-Systems-145-66

[R1-7D]

Thanks for the information on the filters, John. I will look into this further.

I took the lens out yesterday night. Unfortunately I only got 28 shots off with my 5D2 before getting kicked out by the police of the railway yard I was near. Oh well...I'll try to take a few more pictures tonight. I had quite a slow shutter speed last night and did notice quite a bit of flare...but it was an unusual looking flare and it kind of added a cool effect to the pictures.

[Marsu42]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/12/06/Fotodiox-launches-WonderPana-Filter-Systems-145-66

Ugh, not exactly inconspicuous or easy to transport :-o

and did notice quite a bit of flare...

Flare control is an issue with uwa lenses since you are bound to have light sources in the frame, the aps-c flavors differ quite significantly, too ... let us know your findings, personally I'm happy my 17-40L is said to be rather flare resistant. Btw: Removing flare is hard to impossible, but if you want to add cool looking flares, there are multiple nice photoshop plugins out there :-o

[R1-7D]

I unfortunately haven't had more opportunities to play with the lens after the other night.

Here's some sample shots.


IMG_0681 by HadrianRobinson, on Flickr


IMG_0685 by HadrianRobinson, on Flickr


IMG_0688 by HadrianRobinson, on Flickr


IMG_0690 by HadrianRobinson, on Flickr

[SwampYankee]

I have the Tokina.  Fast & sharp.  Really sharp.  Big & heavy too and will flare just a bit if the light source catches from the side.  Highly recommended for landscapes and really shines on low light interiors.  Don't underestimate the weight, on a 5D3 it's quite a neckfull.

[R1-7D]

It is heavy for sure! I had it on my 5D Mark II with grip on the other night. Without a strap the whole setup would be very uncomfortable to hold for extended periods of time.

[wickidwombat]

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).

Really?

you learn something every day, i'm gonna check mine out.
I wonder if my 82mm filters will fit inside my 70-200 hood 

[alexanderferdinand]

Had the 17-40 for a weekend; it was too soft on the edges, and heavy chromatic abberations, even at f8.
The 16-28 now I like a lot. Eqaul in the centre, much better in the corners.
Yes, its heavy. 16mm is wide on a FF, but only going up to 28mm demands lenschanging more often.