• The Canon Rumors Forum has officially been shut down as of July 10, 2026.

    All data will be deleted on September 16, 2026.

    the ad free experience will return by July 17, 2026.

Keep Canon 17-40mm F/4 Vs. Tokina 16-28 F/2.8 Vs. 16-35mm F/2.8

Status
Not open for further replies.
During the summer, my career as a photographer blossomed. I'm seventeen years old, shot two magazine covers, sold some very large (over six feet) prints, had one of my photos go viral and photographed a wedding. In all I earned a couple of grand but most of that I would like to put into savings for during and after college. I shoot on a Canon 5D MKII and do a lot of landscapes. For my landscape lens, I use a 17-40mm F/4 L and sometimes my 50mm, 105mm and 200mm for high quality panoramas. I haven't been using my 17-40 very much do to the fact it is extremely soft and has huge amounts of CA in the corners. Below I will include a shot from the middle edge at F/8. I have been considering upgrading to a new lens as most of my work is landscapes and my 17-40 is most definitely my weakest lens with a slow aperture and soft corners even stopped way down. I need a lens that is sharp through out the image stopped down, I'm fine with soft edges wide open, I'm not shooting landscapes at F/4 and would not be shooting them at F/2.8. I would like there to be as little amount of coma as possible so that I could use the lens for astrophotography instead of my 50mm 1.8.
Canon only really has the 16-35mm which is very expensive and sounds like it is not much sharper then the 17-40mm in the corners. Tokina's 16-28 sounds like a great lens for a great price but i would like to hear what others think of it. I have heard that Tokina doesn't have the best quality control.

http://petapixel.com/2013/07/07/4th-of-july-fireworks-captured-together-with-lightning/

9503949961_155a18a6e4_o.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.