Canon EF-S 10-22 vs Tokina 12-24 ?

Discussion in 'Photography Forums' started by jradley, Feb 8, 2009.

  1. jradley

    jradley
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    895
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +215
    Hi,

    Has anyone had real world experience of either or both of these lenses and can offer some thoughts as to which may be the better option. I'm not worried about the 2mm difference at each end and not worried about differnece in max aperture - they're close enough for me in that respect.

    Also, I am aware the Tokina gets good reviews, but it seems there are 2 versions available - the Mark II Tokina Lens - Tokina 12-24mm f4.0 AT-X PRO DX II (Canon fit) and the original Tokina Lens - Tokina 12-24mm f4.0 AT-X PRO (IF) DX (Canon mount)

    It's not clear to me which of those the reviews refer to, also if other stockists are selling Mark II's but don't say so or what - is the Mark II worth the extra money ?

    Any advice most appreciated.

    Cheers,

    John
     
  2. springtide

    springtide
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,549
    From what I remember reading, the Canon is the sharper lens.

    The new Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is getting rave reviews. Probably a better one to compare the Canon one TBH.

    I'm a Sony user, so it's just what I've remembered from various mag reviews of the ultra wide angles.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2009
  3. jradley

    jradley
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    895
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +215
    I did wonder that, but I'm thinking of getting the Canon 24-105L as a walkabout lens and that would leave me a fairly big gap in focal length, smack bang where I think I'd use it most.

    The Canon is about the same price as the price as the MkII Tokina but considerably more than the MkI. Oh the dilemma :rolleyes:

    John
     
  4. Dr O

    Dr O
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Messages:
    430
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Mucho Northo
    Ratings:
    +71
    Yandros and sdb123 both have the Tokina so may be able to shed some light on the mkI or II query.
    See here for our little Tokina fan club.
     
  5. T0MAT01

    T0MAT01
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,383
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Devon, Sussex or somewhere inbetween.
    Ratings:
    +552
    The two do go together nicely (24-105 & 10-22), but I'm not sure an 8mm gap would worry me too much with the Tokina 11-16 - it's nothing a bit of a crop wont solve.

    The 10-22 is a really fun lens. Nice and sharp, so not much need to stop down.
    In fact the only thing I would change about it are the aperture blades as the bokeh isn't all that great, but it's only ever noticeable when focusing at the minimum distance.
    For landscapes and architecture it's superb.

    As for the Tokina 11-16/2.8, it has a pretty good reputation but is said to have a fair amount of blue fringing (although that can be removed in PP), but that is about the only drawback and obviously a constant f/2.8 is nice for indoor shots.
     
  6. cedmondson

    cedmondson
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,130
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Basingstoke
    Ratings:
    +283
    I think there are quite a few more of us actually ;)
    When I bought myTokina 12-24 (I assume Mark I as it was almost 2 years ago & I I hadn't heard of a Mark II till I saw this thread) I read a lot of reviews - my impression from them was that the differences between the Canon, Sigma & Tokina in most important respects were very small and possibly depended more on the quality of the copy itself than the chosen model. I recall seeing group tests with each of the 3 winning respectively :confused:
    My own tests, trials and experiences seemed to confirm this and in the end I chose the Tokina for its constant F4 and a build quality that was far superior to its rivals (IMHO).
    Its only notable weakness is a tendency for CA (purple fringing) but this is easily fixed in Lightroom / Photoshop. It has probably been my favourite lens and in many ways I'll be sad to see it go when my 5D Mark II finally turns up (not compatible with full frame).

    As an aside, I don't know why Tokina stuff seems so hard to find when they're part of the same (THK) group that make Hoya filters which are available eveywhere??? Odd.
     
  7. Yandros

    Yandros
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,714
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +528
    Tokina 12-24mm has HUUUGE amounts of CA, but most software removes almost all of it very easily. It's also prone to flare (probably the case on all UWAs though).

    I'm certainly happy with mine. Very good build quality, and seems pretty sharp..
     
  8. netronelson

    netronelson
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    679
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +131
    I did a huge amount of research on this exact choice, and long story short went for the tokina - the biggest driver in the end was price, i picked mine up on ebay for around £250, whereas the canon rarely sold for less than £400... if money was no option i'd opt for the canon, mostly for the brand matching, and the extra 2mm on the short end.

    I'm very, very happy with my choice - it's fast at focussing, quiet, solid, and i haven't noticed any CA or softness... i'm not uber good at the technical details, but one of the advantages with the tokina is it's a constant f4, rather than having a drop off...

    the best source for my research was fredmiranda - read through the customer reviews, and do the maths, it's what pipped me in the end - oh, and i joined the relevant group on flickR to see the actual results... it's another top tip, as you'll struggle to see poor photos with the tokina, but i found with the canon that there were quite a few duff shots (but that's probably the user more than the lens).

    good luck!

    N.
     
  9. allymac123

    allymac123
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,065
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    York
    Ratings:
    +435
    If money is no option the Canon wins it every time.

    The extra 2mm on the wide end is alot and the IQ is top notch. I don't think for an EF-S fit UWA it can be beaten.
     
  10. jradley

    jradley
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    895
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +215
    Many thanks for all your replies. I feel like my head has been in a washing machine on spin for the last few days over this decision.

    Yesterday I placed an order for the MkII version of the Tokina, thinking I'd give it a go. To cut a very long story short I had some issues with the retailer and subsequently realised that a) the lens had to be a grey market import and b) the retailer doesn't get great reviews, to say the least. Rightly or wrongly it was enough to put me off and the order got cancelled.

    I have found somewhere doing the Canon for what seems to be a pretty good price (taking into account the current price hikes :( ) so have taken a punt on that instead - assuming they can get the stock when they say they can. If that falls through then I won't pay any more for it so could still go for the Tokina afterall.

    Cheers,

    John
     
  11. seadog99

    seadog99
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    21
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    What about the sigma 10-20, that gets good reviews when you can get a sharp copy. If you order from a reputable company, just send it back till you get a nice sharp one. Its only £315 at WEX at the mo.

    Maybe worth a look

    seaDog
     
  12. jradley

    jradley
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    895
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +215
    I'd decided against the Sigma quite early on in my investigations. The thing is I'm about to go on holiday and want to take the lens with me so time isn't on my side to keep sending back duff lenses. Plus there's hassle and expense involved in that too.

    Also, with the Sigma reputation as it is, I am concerned that I'd end up with a copy that gives pretty good results but not quite as good as it should be, and with me not knowing any better would stick with it.

    Also, perhaps more importantly, I really dislike manufacturers that deliberately cut corners in manufacture and QC to make a few extra pennies profit with an attitude that the customer won't notice or care. Well I care. I don't know if Sigma fall into that category, but I've heard enough stories to raise sufficient doubt in my mind. For me they need to smarten up their act before I would consider buying, especially where there is an alternative product at the same price that performs just as well if not better, eg in this case the Tokina (Mk1) which I could get for about £350 (and still might).

    Sorry if that sounds like a rant, it's not meant to be, just explaining my reasons for not going with the Sigma.

    Cheers,

    John
     
  13. springtide

    springtide
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,549
    I do hate Sigma for the QC. It's rubbish, total rubbish. What's frustrating is that generally the IQ from their lenses can be the best, but it's the luck of the draw.

    I decided on the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 over the ony as it was considered a premium lens over the Sony (i.e. more expensive). The first copy I got, I took it out of the box, picked it up and the front element fell out and landed on the floor :eek: Luckly the shop had a second copy and that one seems fine (even great). That to me explains how poor Sigma's QC is. How that managed to be inspected and leave the factory is anyone's guess, and this was their 'premium EX' lens which costs £360 vs £250 for the Sony.
     
  14. photochris

    photochris
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +0
    I've done some extensive testing myself since I couldn't find any reviews on the new Tokina 12-24 f4 mkII.
    I know the thread is old but I still want to contribute.
    I've tested the Tamron 10-24, Sigma 10-22, Tokina 11-16 f2.8, both the 12-24 mkI and mk II and of course the Canon 10-22 since I wasn't satisfied with results from the Canon.
    When it comes to sharpness I would rate them as follows:
    1. Tokina 12-24 mk II
    2. Tokina 12-24 mkI
    3. Tokina 11-16
    4. Canon 10-22
    5. Sigma 10-22
    ... and huge gap...
    6. Tamron 10-24

    The Tokina mkII is by far the sharpest but has more CA than Canon
    The build quality is like the Canon L-series lenses = really good!
    Some say the Tokina mkII is sharper than the Canons 17-40L and the 16-36L mkI. Haven't tested those but wouldn't be surprised.
    The Canon is a good lens don't get me wrong. They all are except the Tamron... If you need the extra 2mm on the wide end stick with the Canon 10-22 but if you''re really picky get the Tokina 12-24 mkII. The CA is easier to fix in Photoshop than the softness...
     
  15. weetsie

    weetsie
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,904
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +508
    crazy, i thought the 11-16 was by far the sharpest. :confused:
     
  16. senu

    senu
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Denham, South Bucks
    Ratings:
    +2,811
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2010
  17. Dr O

    Dr O
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Messages:
    430
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Mucho Northo
    Ratings:
    +71
    It is:D

    I would put this down to sample variation- since the early days of this thread and my move from film to digital, I have had the pleasure to use all the current UWA's often in both Canon and Nikon mount (third party lenses obviously). There may have been some Sony usage but clearly I'm not going to admit that here:devil:

    From my tests, I'd put the Tokina 11-16 first, then off the top of my head it was a close call between the Tokina 12-24's (and I can't say I remember much between Mk I/II so could be under certain conditions only that you get less flare or CA with the Mk II or I have less grey cells or both) and the Canon. Nikon 12-24 then Sigma next- not the f3.5 version. Then the Nikon 10-24 then the Tamron.

    I can't remember all the characteristics now but remember being unimpressed with the Nikon 10-24 especially given the cost. The Nikon 12-24 is a very nice lens and should not be tarred with the same brush.

    To be honest I'd be happy to use any of them apart from the Nikon 10-24 and the Tamron 10-24 as I'm just not that tolerant:laugh:. However, the 11-16 is the best- its sharpenss and flexibility make it so for me though if I do more weights and go full frame I'd buy a 14-24 because it's awesome:)

    There is the new Sigma actually- the 8-16 , not used that. Don't know anyone with one either- one to think about. Cud be interesting as long as there's been a bit of QC on it.
     
  18. SevloW

    SevloW
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,123
    Products Owned:
    5
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Area 51
    Ratings:
    +1,174
    Another :smashin: for the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8
    Fantastic, I love mine
     
  19. hallanthony

    hallanthony
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Messages:
    785
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Reading
    Ratings:
    +188
    Me too love my 11-16mm - use as my walkaround lens most of the time :smashin:
     

Share This Page

Loading...