Canon 16-35mm II vs Tokina 16-28mm Lens Review – By Dave Dugdale

September 9th, 2013

Several readers recommended Dave Dugdale’s video lens comparison review of the Canon 16-35mm II vs the Tokina 16-28mm. Keep in mind that even though Dave is making this comparison to try to decide which wide angle lens to use on his full frame Canon DSLR the Tokina 16-28mm lens is also available for use with full frame Nikon DSLRs.

I have to say that it’s pretty amazing that the Tokina looks so good compared to Canon’s best L series lens wide angle lens when it’s only half the price of the Canon 16-35mm.

I can attest to the fact that the Canon 16-35 is built like a tank! I have the old model that I got in 2003, and it is still as good as new.

Oh by the way, while you are over at Dave Dugdale’s site, he has a bunch of tutorials and resources for learning to shot video with your DSLR.



Share this

5 Responses to “Canon 16-35mm II vs Tokina 16-28mm Lens Review – By Dave Dugdale”

  • Great article/video. Another lens I would throw into the ring is the Canon 17-40mm F/4L. It’s my favourite wide angle, no big deal that it’s only F4 because I only shoot at F6.3 or above anyway to get everything looking sharp and near the sweet spot of the lens.

  • Larry thanks for posting my video here, I have learned a ton from this site.

    @Jon I thought about the 17-40mm but I really like shooting stars at night so I needed the f2.8. If I used f4 at night I might have to leave the shutter open for longer than 30 seconds and that would cause the stars to move.

  • @Dave
    There are some good image stacking programs for both Mac and PC that are perfect for astronomy work. I’ve had great luck with my Canon 17-40 on a 50D in getting night time shots. I’m hoping for more chances tonight if the forecasted thunder storms roll in. Most of the time the storms bunch up at the edge of the valley and there are stars in the frame due to clear skies overhead.

    The price difference between these two lenses is pretty wide although I didn’t look at the used market. I tend to stay with the Canon pro series lenses. If I can pay a reasonable price for a clean used copy, it will retain its value for years. I always know that if I’m pressed for money I can count on getting most, if not all, of my investment back by going with Canon L stock. Third party lenses don’t often fair so well. All of that said, when I needed a UWA lens for RE work, I picked up a Sigma over the Canon. I was low on funds and the Sigma was holding its value in the used market. I also couldn’t justify the premium price of the Canon lens to shoot in a market with a pretty low pay scale compared to my commercial work. Other than some close ups of camels and alpacas, I haven’t used the UWA for anything other than RE.

  • Really appreciated Dave’s vid. @Dave: Thanks.

    I will say, if you want a real -laugh- though, check out crisislab’s video, “The F%^&ing Nikon D800 vs. Canon 5D mkIII Shootout PART 2” linked to by Dave. The comedic break was both of value, and, well, darned funny.

    Thanks both.

  • I have been getting great results with my older Nikon 17-35mm on my D700. It is rock solid (but heavy).

Trackback URI Comments RSS

Leave a Reply