C300: Canon C300 Mark II Which Lens Canon vs Tokina

cobz01

cobz01

Active member
What's going on guys, just wanted to hear some opinions on which wide angle to go with. I know this has been talked about to death before but there are 2 fairly new lenses that have come out and wanted to know whether one is significantly better then the other. The 2 lenses are canon Ef 11-24mm f/4 and the Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 that I am looking at.. I am part of a firework club and I film firework shows and demos for the club. . I am just a hobbiest and have been shooting fireworks for a number of years already. Started out with the Sony pmw-200 but sold it because the fixed lens was just not wide enough sometimes, so I went to the c300 and have been using my Ef 16-35mm f/2.8 ii lens. Just recently I switched to the c300 mark ii because I wanted a 4K cam. Anyway, with the Ef 16-35mm I have been really happy with it but I am generally setting up behind or in the middle of the general public in the bed of someone's f-150 which works out great because it gets me up off the ground. What I would like be able to would be to setup in front of the general public and sit where my friends are in the club, in order to do that I will of course need something a little wider.. I will be using either lens at the 11mm end and with the crop factor it works out to be 17.6mm or somewhere around there. The club sits far enough back from the fireworks so it will give me enough of distance to capture everything. This would get me in front of the general audience.. Another reason for not wanting to setup in the middle of the general public is to avoid car alarms going off, but at the same time , I just want to be a little closer to the action.. :) ..

What do you guys think is the best way to go with either of the 2 lenses mentioned? Distortion, pincushion, corner sharpness, etc.. The canon 11-24mm seems to be really good in this regard. Optically I am pretty sure the canon is the far better lens but does it make sense for the money? Or if there are any others I should consider please let me know.. The reason I am going with a wide zoom is because meet in a few different locations and some shoot sites range is size.. Any advice on which way to go would be appreciated.. Thanks..
 
Last edited:
Quite a few views and nobody has anything to say.. :) I would like to hear some suggestions, or if I should just stick to my 16-35mm f/2.8 ii .. What do you guys think is the best option? If I end up buying the canon ef 11-24mm then I will most likely sell the 16-35mm to help soften the blow... Its a very pricey lens.. Any help would be welcome... thanks
 
Last edited:
I've had the Tokina 11-16 for awhile and like it. I just bought the Tokina 11-20 when it was on sale at B&H for $450 a few days ago (hasn't arrived yet), so I may sell my 11-16. The Canon 11-24 looks pretty nice, but I'm not sure I'd be happy with f/4.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I've had the Tokina 11-16 for awhile and like it. I just bought the Tokina 11-20 when it was on sale at B&H for $450 a few days ago (hasn't arrived yet), so I may sell my 11-16. The Canon 11-24 looks pretty nice, but I'm not sure I'd be happy with f/4.
Click to expand...

Thanks eric much appreciated on your input.. Yeah, I actually saw the Tokina was on sale at b&h, but I thought it was $549 not $450' now it's back to $599.. Anyway, I would rather buy the Tokina then to spend the money on the canon 11-24mm if I do not have to. But if the canon is superior to the Tokina then I would consider buying it and selling my 16-35mm.. The f/4 lens though should be plenty fast for the c300 Mark ii though right? I do not think I would need the f/2.8 for filming the fireworks, it would not hurt though if I had the faster lens.. I am just trying to figure out if the video footage would be clearly superior over the Tokina to warrant the price difference, regardless of the f/4 vs f/2.8. Any thoughts? The lenses are fairly new so I have not seen any reviews of a c300, c100 or Mark ii using either lens except for the older 11-16mm. There is one video out there with a Sony fs7 underwater using the canon 11-24mm, and it looked really nice... Decisions, decisions.. That's why I am trying to get some help in deciding which lens would be best..
 
Last edited:
Tokina 11-20 is crazy sharp on Canon C100 on f2.8. Canon is Full Frame lens, he is heavy and u cant attach filtr on him. Tokina is much lighter (lighter than my Canon 17-55mm) and u can attach filters on them. So i think Tokina is better choice. It is cheaper too ;)
 
michasacuer said:
Tokina 11-20 is crazy sharp on Canon C100 on f2.8. Canon is Full Frame lens, he is heavy and u cant attach filtr on him. Tokina is much lighter (lighter than my Canon 17-55mm) and u can attach filters on them. So i think Tokina is better choice. It is cheaper too ;)
Click to expand...

Another vote for the Tokina.. :). Yeah , that is one of cons about the 11-24mm , no lens filter to protect the lens which would be of importance to protect it from falling debris from the fireworks... Weight is not really an issue because the cam will obviously be on sticks the entire time, but I understand it is a heavy lens..
 
Last edited:
The Canon 11-24 is one super lens. Waiting to get it for a trip later this year. The cost is not for the fainthearted. Infact I was about to get it last year and then something came up and I dropped the idea. It is all about priorities. The samples that I have seen from this lens is pretty awesome. If you have the budget and your business can support it then go for the best.
 
indiawilds said:
The Canon 11-24 is one super lens. Waiting to get it for a trip later this year. The cost is not for the fainthearted. Infact I was about to get it last year and then something came up and I dropped the idea. It is all about priorities. The samples that I have seen from this lens is pretty awesome. If you have the budget and your business can support it then go for the best.
Click to expand...

I was reading the reviews that are out there and it seems the canon 11-24mm has a lot more distortion and stuff going on at the 11m end, so the Tokina 11-20mm looks to be better. That's my take from reading certain reviews, but I could be wrong.. Like I said I am just a hobbiest, but I can afford the canon and would buy it if is clearly better then the Tokina for what I am doing. But like I said I would rather not spend the money if the Tokina is as good or close to the canon.. Drastic difference in price.. Appreciate your input.. That's why I posted this thread to hear different ideas and or opinions on which way to go.. I am leaning towards the Tokina as of right now ,but I can always hold off and continue using my 16-35mm f/2.8 ii lens.. We have a shoot coming up this sat so I might pull the trigger on something, not sure yet though.. :)
 
Last edited:
Remember that the Canon 11-24 is a full frame lens, while the Tokina 11-20 is for crop sensors only. Since reviews of the Canon are made on full frame cameras, you cannot compare edge distortion to the Tokina as the Canon is much wider on the full frame. The Tokina 11-20 at 11mm on a C300 is equal to the Canon at 16.5mm on a full frame camera. If you can find a review of the 11-24 made on a crop body, then you can compare. The Canon is the widest non-fish eye zoom lens available for full frame cameras. It's a premium lens and I'm pretty sure it's better then the Tokina in every respect except for price, size, weight and getting a filter mounted.

I use the 16-35 F4 IS on my C300 a lot. If i need something wider, which I rarely do, I grab the cheap but impressively good Canon 10-18. It's slow though, so if you need low light performance you may be better off with the Tokina. I had a Tokina 11-16, but I returned it because it had so much purple fringing. Maybe the newer 11-20 is better in this regard?
 
do not consider much based just on f2.8 or f4.0.... f is not standard .... it may be possible that f2.8 on tokina is close to f.4 or other brand... it is not the same as cinema T stop. in any case its something to test.... what i am trying to say is that F2.8 on one lens does not equal F2.8 on other lens... especially when brands are different.

about the quality of 11-16 i know that optically is far from perfect, i read tons of complains from photographers... and i do believe canon is going to be better, but price difference is huge..

but if u dont need AF, i would concider to get Tokina cinema version of 11-16 ! its a better lens in many ways! full manual, better coating, better iris blades, metal inside, focus/zoom/iris gear, declicked, Parafocal....
http://www.tokinacinema.com/11-16mmT3.html
in europe i can get it for 760euro+vat
price is extra few hundreds , but looks like it worth it.
 
BuT Every lens on lenstip.com are tested on APSC camera when lens is for full frame. .. I'm REally intresting how Chromatic Abberration perform on cine version of T11-16. The photo version WA t terrible on it. I didnt see it on T11-20. I think they correct that in this newer Tokina, 11-20
 
cobz01 said:
Please translate.. :). Is the cine version better? Supposedly it's the same lens except the difference being geared focus, aperture, focus zoom rings and declicked aperture ring. But optically it's the same correct?
Click to expand...

Cine version is the same as photo version. Of course cine have less breathing and it is parafocal, but in this range is not hard to keep object in focus. You pay more only for version to play with follow focuses etc. Cine version of this Tokina dont have electronic, so body "dont know" what you attach to the body. My Tokina 11-20 have electronic and C100 know what im doing with him :D

Cine version is the same quality as photo with this awful chromatic aberration (you can see it on video test that i linked before).

In conclusion, i think 11-16 CINE is not worth that price. Is the same lens as normal 11-16 with all pros and cons of photo version. Of course Cine version dont have AF, but AF in this Tokinas are veeery slow, not worth to shoot with AF. its loud too.

In my opinion, go for Tokina 11-20. Its sharper and have less CA than Canon 11-24. Its lighter too, you can attach filter on it and this lens is one stop faster. Vigneting is the same on both full open (-0.8ev on Canon at 11mm f4 and -0.8ev on Tokina at 11mm f2.8) but tokina closed to f4 perform better (at 11mm and F4 tokina have -0.4 ev on corners). I posted review of this lenses on lenstip.com. You have all what i said in one place on this site.

Make good decision ;)
 
michasacuer said:
Cine version is the same as photo version. Of course cine have less breathing and it is parafocal, but in this range is not hard to keep object in focus. You pay more only for version to play with follow focuses etc. Cine version of this Tokina dont have electronic, so body "dont know" what you attach to the body. My Tokina 11-20 have electronic and C100 know what im doing with him :D

Cine version is the same quality as photo with this awful chromatic aberration (you can see it on video test that i linked before).

In conclusion, i think 11-16 CINE is not worth that price. Is the same lens as normal 11-16 with all pros and cons of photo version. Of course Cine version dont have AF, but AF in this Tokinas are veeery slow, not worth to shoot with AF. its loud too.

In my opinion, go for Tokina 11-20. Its sharper and have less CA than Canon 11-24. Its lighter too, you can attach filter on it and this lens is one stop faster. Vigneting is the same on both full open (-0.8ev on Canon at 11mm f4 and -0.8ev on Tokina at 11mm f2.8) but tokina closed to f4 perform better (at 11mm and F4 tokina have -0.4 ev on corners). I posted review of this lenses on lenstip.com. You have all what i said in one place on this site.

Make good decision ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for all your input much appreciated.. I guess I will pull the trigger on the Tokina 11-20mm then and save a bunch of cash... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top