Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ?

i love mine its awesome, i do wish the range was a little bigger, my dad has the canon 10-22 and i like how it is a little more versatile, but the f/2.8 of the tokina i really like
 
There isn't another UWA that comes close. There's no point to purchasing other ones, unless you're trying to be cheap.
 
Built to cine glass specs, optically. Canon and Nikon's wides don't even come close and cost twice as much.
 
thats what i thought but I've just seen a lot of people saying that they want a wide angle lens and say which of two they should get (tokina 11-16 or tamron 17-50)
 
Well 17 isn't that wide. It's wide ENOUGH but after using a 11-16 @11 17 doesnt feel wide anymore ha
 
because everyone thinks they need a wide angle, but nobody knows what the focal length ratings mean. Most people need to get rid of the kit lens before they move on to an UWA
 
This might be a really stupid question. Anyways, im stuck between getting the Canon 70-200 and the Tokina 11-16. I really want to start using my glidecam more for next season and I think the 11-16 would be great for that. I also like shooting scenery and landscape at long focal lengths. I dont shoot more then 50mm quite often.

If anyone could answer this, how do the optics of the 11-16 compare to the tamron 17-50? what about the 70-200?

any thoughts?
 
The 17-50 does a variety of multi-purpose focal lengths fairly well. The 11-16 only does wide angle, and it does it REALLY well. It's a matter of versatility vs quality. The 11-16 is optically superior, but it's also a one-trick pony. The 17-50 has a wider variety of uses, but doesn't do them as well. It's also worth noting that both lenses have different purposes. If you want a wide angle, get the Tokina. If you want a do-everything-lens, get the Tamron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top