Tokin 16-50 f2.8

[R6_Dude]

Searched and not many have used this lens, should I assume it is not a good lens?

I am thinking about getting it as it almost perfectly fits my needs. I was about to pick up the 11-16 f2.8 when I came across this lens.

It is $50 cheaper and provides a focal length that I think will be almost universal for me to use.

However, my main purpose in getting a wide angle lens is to take great landscape shots, will I be disappointed with this lens? I know the 11-16 is super wide and I will probably be very happy with it, but I am trying to kill two birds with one stone. The 16-50 will provide a wide angle (but will it be wide enough?) for landscapes and the 2.8 and the zoom will allow me to use it for indoor pictures.

Advice? Tips? Recommendation? Will be shooting with a Canon T1i.

 

[LuckySo-n-So]

If you are looking in that general focal range, I would suggest the Sigma 18-50 2.8. It is probably one of the best lenses price-wise on the market. It's around $400 (I think--bought mine almost a year ago).

Some reviews show that it is as good as the Nikon equivalent.

 

[R6_Dude]

^^^ I want to go wider than 18mm. I believe that 2mm wider is a 7 degree difference diagonally. I just brought this lens up b/c I was trying to get a lens that I can get both landscapes as well as use indoors.

 

[windcoastphotography]

Personally if I wanted wider, I would go with the sigma 10-20mm, or the canon 10-22. I am not quite sold on Tokina yet, I may be wrong though. I have used the 10-20 and the 10-22 many times and they are wonderful for landscape. I try not to have multi purpose lenses though, I find you will always loose some aspect of quality when lenses have multiple applications. The only thing you can really do is try them. It comes down to how the lens feels in your hand.

 

[NateS]

The reason you don't see much about the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 is because it is optically inferior to the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and the Tokina is substantially more expensive. The only thing the Tokina has over those other two is build quality and 1-2mm wider. I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and love it. I've used it for many landscape shots and haven't been dissapointed yet.

 

[R6_Dude]

The reason you don't see much about the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 is because it is optically inferior to the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and the Tokina is substantially more expensive. The only thing the Tokina has over those other two is build quality and 1-2mm wider. I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and love it. I've used it for many landscape shots and haven't been dissapointed yet.

I have also read the reviews on both the Tamron and Sigma, you are correct, people who own them are very happy with it. Also, I don't want the 18mm b/c my kit lens is already (granted its not at f2.8) and 17 isn't much of a difference. Trying to get my money's worth haha.

Can you post any landscape shots with your Tamron? I have been trying to find comparison pictures with the Tokina.
When you say optically inferior, do you mean the Tokina pics will come out much softer?

Being that BH is out of stock on the 11-16 f2.8, with no expected date of re-stocking, I am really considering this lens.

 

[NateWagner]

I would like to see where you come up with the idea that the Tokina is optically inferior. I have not personally seen that. As a matter of fact, everything I have read about it is positive.

Personally, I think that Tokina is less well known just because of a lack of advertisement and market share. Unless you have some sort of proof it's like saying the only reason Pentax is not as well known is because they are inferior and so people don't use them.

 

[R6_Dude]

Anymore feedback?

I did more research and I have seen some bad reviews and some good reviews. There was a pretty good review on flickr, but that left me even more confused! haha. Those that are against it, recommends the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.
Those that were for it, says the only problem is the vignetting, but it can be fixed in PP, how do you fix vignetting?

Heres my dilemma now.
The Tokina is an extra 1mm wider and priced at $549.
The Tamron is 1mm narrow and priced at $649 (VC version)
I found a few used Canon 17-55 f2.8 for about ~$800 - $850.

If I buy the Tamron, I might as well shell out a couple of hundred and get the Canon right? Or I can use that extra $200 on a tripod.
Is the Tamron really worth the extra $100, with a more narrow focal length (i know its only 1mm).

Advice?

 

[Dao]

What about the non-VC version of Tamron?

 

[R6_Dude]

What about the non-VC version of Tamron?

The non-VC version is at a great price. $459. But not having the VC is like not having the IS and at 50mm its going to have lots of shakes.

 

[Dao]

I have the Tamron, IS/VC is nice to have, but I do not have any issue without it. Of course, if we are talking about 200 to 300mm range, that's a different story.

 

[PackingMyBags]

Tamron 17-55 non VR

 

[R6_Dude]

I have the Tamron, IS/VC is nice to have, but I do not have any issue without it. Of course, if we are talking about 200 to 300mm range, that's a different story.

But doesn't all lens get a bit sensitve (shakey) at the furthest focal length?

Have you been in a situation where you were glad you had it?

 

[rufus5150]

But doesn't all lens get a bit sensitve (shakey) at the furthest focal length?

Without knowing the required shooting speed due to light, this is a pretty nonsensical question. If enough light is present and you're shooting at 1/4000th, you can pretty much hand-hold any lens that any manufacturer makes (some rare exceptions).

My 24-70 has no IS and I hand-hold it all of the time at 70mm. Same with my 70-200 at 200mm. 1/320th on a 200mm/crop body (canon, 1/300 on a nikon) is sufficient to combat camera shake hand-held. With proper stance, you can get away with another stop or so as well.

As to the some of the original question -- landscapes at 16 or 17mm on a crop body aren't going to be that wide. Or so I've been told. I bought a 10-20sigma an though I love it, I almost always shoot between 15 and 20, and usually the longer end for landscape shots. I may just be weird, though.

 

[rufus5150]

Those that were for it, says the only problem is the vignetting, but it can be fixed in PP, how do you fix vignetting?

Those sliders you use in either photoshop or lightroom or camera raw (DPP and other programs have them as well) which you can use to add a vignette can be used to combat the effects of a vignette. My guess is, though, on a crop-sensor, the vignetting will be very, very minor if present at all, esp if you shoot landscapes with a narrow aperture. Most lenses that vignette wide open completely lose the vignette a stop down from wide open.