Tokina 16-50 for APS-C

It the best/most useful single lens available for the 7d - I dont know why people go for the Stigma and Canon plastic fantastics

Stops at infinity
Chunky FF wheel
Decent aperture size
Great Feel on the FF wheel
Zoom from proper wide to nice head filling screen close up
Dirt cheap
Massive ff wheel to bolt on a lens gear


IMO the 17-40 canon L is the only competition jn the 'I could shoot a whole piece on this lens' class - the 16-35 being too short,

The 'downsides'

I think it focuses the 'nikon way'
the FF travel is short (like other zooms)
No IS

ps IMO the second most useful/price/weight/range lens in the canon 70-200F4 (used) ,my third lens is a 50 1.4 (nikkor) - I feel fully kitted for less than £1000 UK

S
 
Last edited:
It simply is the best lens in this range. Tamron 17-50(VC or non VC) 2.8 is no match for its mechanical & optical quality... I'd class it in Canon L category.
B & H is out of stock, got mine from Adorama....
 
VGurcu said:
It simply is the best lens in this range. Tamron 17-50(VC or non VC) 2.8 is no match for its mechanical & optical quality... I'd class it in Canon L category.
B & H is out of stock, got mine from Adorama....
Click to expand...

Yes, but some people need VC (IS). Not me, but some people want it! That is why they go tamron. I went 17-40F4L since I also use a 5D, but if I were aps-c only, the tokina is what i would get based on the handling of the 11-16. You could pretty much just shoot that lens.
 
I'll second (or third) what's been said above... Fantastic (and dense) build quality, smooth zoom & focus action, hard stops on the focus (albeit with a short throw), and great optical quality.
 
Have any of you shooting with this lens had issues with chromatic aberration? That's the one big issue I've heard with this lens that has me leading towards the Tamron 17-50 (I hate CA), but I'd love to hear whether this is well founded or not. Thanks!
Peace,

-Harry
 
dudeguy37 said:
Have any of you shooting with this lens had issues with chromatic aberration? That's the one big issue I've heard with this lens that has me leading towards the Tamron 17-50 (I hate CA), but I'd love to hear whether this is well founded or not. Thanks!
Peace,

-Harry
Click to expand...

Video on DSLR is the great equalizer. You won't notice as much difference between lenses as you do with stills. color, contrast and and handling trump the other stuff since the image is such low res.
 
saneproductions said:
Video on DSLR is the great equalizer. You won't notice as much difference between lenses as you do with stills. color, contrast and and handling trump the other stuff since the image is such low res.
Click to expand...

Granted for the resolution of a lens. But chromatic aberration falls into the category of contrast, bokeh etc. It is inherent in the image, becoming a physical, visible part of the video. So really what I'm asking for is first hand reports of this specific lens on the Canon video SLRs, and whether CA has presented a bis issue. Thanks!
Peace,

-Harry
 
I'm interested in the CA issue too. Also, is there distortion at the shorter end of the lens? The one great thing I see in the Tokina 11-16 is that it is rectalinear... I am really looking for a lens that provides a nice wide shot at 2.8 - I figured the 16-50 would be much more convenient for stills (I really only shoot stills when traveling, and use my 7d for video production otherwise).

I don't see the lack of IS/VC being an issue on a lens this short. I have never needed stabilization on such a wide lens, not sure why you would need it...
 
Have any of you shooting with this lens had issues with chromatic aberration? That's the one big issue I've heard with this lens that has me leading towards the Tamron 17-50 (I hate CA), but I'd love to hear whether this is well founded or not.
Click to expand...
I havent used this lens for still pictures yet, only for video. I shot under harsh sunlight with high contrast, and havent seen any CA on my videos. (I do remember having really visible CA at some situations when I shot with a XL2)
I don't see the lack of IS/VC being an issue on a lens this short. I have never needed stabilization on such a wide lens, not sure why you would need it...
Click to expand...
Right, you wouldnt...
 
saneproductions said:
Yes, but some people need VC (IS). Not me, but some people want it! That is why they go tamron. I went 17-40F4L since I also use a 5D, but if I were aps-c only, the tokina is what i would get based on the handling of the 11-16. You could pretty much just shoot that lens.
Click to expand...

Mike, if you ever have time and have both your camera out can you shoot a comparison test shot between the 11-16mm in the T2 at 11mm and the same shot with the 17-40mm at 17 in the 5D. I'd be really interested if the relative coverage and the level of distortion between the two formats. Thanks if ever possible.
 
The two opening shots and the section starting at 120 is with this lens

I tend to overexpose a little and the colour is set too yellow

I think it is a little flarey - reducing contrast in dark areas - but I do not see significant CA or barrelling of the wide end

I really notice WA barrel on the 24-105 n the 5d but not on this lens on the 7

S

 
Just wanted to add an update on CA issue. This weekend I took some still pictures with Tokina 16-50mm and yes there is CA, however it is not noticeable unless you blow up the picture. I also had a Nikon 105mm macro and noticed similar CA on certain edges.
Below is the pic & %100 detail of the upper top stone : ( Tokina at 16mm)
Note:If you want to see the original size let me know (6mb)
 

Attachments

  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    133.6 KB · Views: 0
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    114.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top