Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Thanks for the info but isn't the Tokina 12-24mm quite an old lens ? I assumed more up to date lens would be better overall coupled with the likes of USM etc and less distortion trade offs.
|
I think, Tokina 12-24mm was initially released somewhere around 2004/2005. Mark II was released in 2010 if I'm not mistaken so technically it's newer than Canon 10-22mm. Mark II has a new AF assembly and new coatings on lenses. Otherwise it's pretty much unchanged from the original.
In comparison to Canon, having tested both, I can tell there's very little difference in terms of optical quality. Tokina has slightly softer edges wide open and center resolution is a tiny bit worse across the aperture and focal length range. Then again, stopped down to F8 Tokina edges ahead in corner resolution.
I have a bit mixed feelings about the Canon lens. It's superior to Tokina by a minor margin which puts it quite close to professional quality. However the price in in the professional range as well. That's a bit problematic equation since as a professional photographer you'd most likely have a full frame body and in that case coughing up the extra cash to get the 16-35mm F2.8L is a no brainer.
USM though is indeed nice, it's a bit faster than Tokina's micro motor and much quieter. Canon does a slightly better job controlling CA as well.
In the end it comes down to how much you want to invest to something that tends to end up as a plaything.
Then there's of course Tokina's 11-16mm F2.8 which is a bit better than both of the others in terms of optical quality, but due to shorter focal length range is not quite as versatile. F2.8 maximum aperture is nice though...