tokina 11-16 or tamron 17-50?

Cole Harris

Cole Harris

Member
So I know they are both totally different ranges but I still can't decide between the two. So the 17-50 is a great range and fast but I realy like the stuff I've seen from the ssxdwtokina. So is it stupid to get the 11-16 or is that actualy a pretty useful range? Also since the tokina is made for apsc that means I can't use it on a full frame camera so in the future I might not be able to use that lense on different camera. I do a lot of architecture photography so the wider the better so let me know
 
11-16mm is not good for general purpose, while 17-50mm is. If you plan on shooting only ultra-wide shots, then the former might be viable. But I don't know of any videographer who does that.
 
I have both. Tamron 17-50 is the more versatile focal length. Can't say I am thrilled with it due to its short focus throw. But images are sharp.

But nothing is as sharp as the Tokina 11-16 and I made great use of it the other day shooting tables at an event (stills, that is).
 
Though I love my Tokina 11-16, I only find my self using it during certain scenes shots for a specific project. That's to say - I don't use it a lot. So consider what you NEED first.
 
Come on guys, seriously?

This EXACT same thread is posted about every 5-6 weeks like clock work. We are all about sharing knowledge and helping newcommers, but your first lesson needs to be to learn how to use the search button because we cant keep spoon feeding those that wont help themselves.

jon
 
Thanks guys for your responses I really appreciate your opinions. Jon, first off yes I did utilize the search function before I continued to post this thread. Yes there have been a few comparisons between the lenses but none of which benefit my circumstances and style of shooting. Everybody's style of shooting and choice of subjects is different so someone else asking this same question may deserve a different response then I do. I know seeing the same subjects pop up is annoying but honestly the time spent responding to similar questions is well worth the effort and the people who respond seem to have no problem doing it. Given the fact that right now I am doing allot architecture photography choosing the Tokina was the right choice for me, and given that I do have a 50mm and a 35mm not having the 17-50 wasn't a big loss for me at this moment. Thanks for your help!
 
i only use my ultrawides for interior shots (videos for the real estate market) and VERY RARELY for scenery. other than that it stays at home.

the 17-55 is FAR more attractive for anything else. and the ultrawide needs a LOT of correction, almost to a fault, for video.
 
Hmmmmm I'm starting to re-think my decision to get the Tokina, although considering it's current rareness its probably a good idea just to keep it and save some money to get the Tamron as well. Do any of you have some shots with the Tamron I can see? How does it compare to the Canon 17-55 with is?
Thanks again!
 
Cole Harris said:
Hmmmmm I'm starting to re-think my decision to get the Tokina, although considering it's current rareness its probably a good idea just to keep it and save some money to get the Tamron as well.
Click to expand...
$600-700 is a lot to spend on something that you'll have to "settle" with using until you have the money for something more useful. I'm not convinced of the logic behind how you're prioritizing.

How does it compare to the Canon 17-55 with is?
Click to expand...
The Canon is better, no question. The image quality won't be dramatically better, but the build quality will be.
 
Cole Harris said:
Hmmmmm I'm starting to re-think my decision to get the Tokina, although considering it's current rareness its probably a good idea just to keep it and save some money to get the Tamron as well. Do any of you have some shots with the Tamron I can see? How does it compare to the Canon 17-55 with is?
Thanks again!
Click to expand...

i dont have the tamron; i have a Nikkor 12-24 and a Nikkor 10-24. i rarely use the 12-24, and i loan or rent out the 10-24.

the tokina, although rare, will never net you more than what you paid for it; its a 3rd party lens, and its not a fast lens or even a fixed aperture lens; i would avoid it. the Canon 17-55 is a fixed aperture, 'pro- quality lens; THAT will hold its value.
 
Yeah, sorry... Well the logic behind my spending is that a few jobs came up for shooting some of those house walk through videos for some real-estate companies and having the money from those jobs seemed more important than being able to shoot more of what I want to shoot. So I was thinking with the money I'll probably make from this work I can probably buy the Tamron. Do you think the Canon is worth the extra money?
 
Zissou said:
i dont have the tamron; i have a Nikkor 12-24 and a Nikkor 10-24. i rarely use the 12-24, and i loan or rent out the 10-24.

the tokina, although rare, will never net you more than what you paid for it; its a 3rd party lens, and its not a fast lens or even a fixed aperture lens; i would avoid it. the Canon 17-55 is a fixed aperture, 'pro- quality lens; THAT will hold its value.
Click to expand...

I just eBay'd my Tokina 11-16 for considerably more than I paid for it. Rarity increases going prices :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top