I've been using the Tokina 17-35 for the past few years and I'm not surprised at how well it did. Got it on eBay and it was so much cheaper than the Canon 17-40 and 16-35. If I ever need a ultra wide zoom I'll go with the Canon after seeing the test results.
Also, if you turn on the Vigneting control on the Canon (using the Canon lens), you will see much better performance. If you use a third party lens you may not get the same result (may not even work). Hence, put a Canon on a Canon!
Wow what a great reviews, I love it it. I agree with all except auto-focus. Since I have a Nikon camera my practical choices are Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.
This is one of the great review I've seen for the last few years. Thank you. I am a Nikon user and wish you could have compared the lens on a nikon camera. But I guess I have to use whatever information available. I'm debating between the nikon and tokina (both used) since I don't have to use an adapter for it. What will be your suggestion?
Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concern about mounting the Nikon lens on a Nikon body, but mixing up any of these lenses with multiple cameras causes more problems than it solves, plus i don't have a Nikon camera anyways. Mabey that will change one day though. Anyway, between the Nikon and the Tokina, if it were up to me, i would definately go with the Tokina. One thing you might want to check out though, is the autofocus performance between these two lenses, since i didn't not cover this, that could help you make a decision too. Thanks again for watching.
Great review, proof again that a Zeiss badge does not mean Zeiss glass quality when it's a daul brand lens. The more real M fit Zeiss lenses for Leica are far better. But don't expect some big tubers to tell you that.😎😎😎
I think the point scales should be different for each category depend on how important they are such as image quality vs. Lens mounting or Focus ring ... the scale should not be 4 for all these categories. For example: the cost for improvement image sharpness should not be the same as the cost of improvement of the focus ring ... When you stated that Sony lens is over price; if one uses Sony Camera and going to buy Canon lens then has to buy the adapter that cost extra $400 (Metabone) and adds more weight on it and sacrifices focus performance which is the great feature what shoppers looking for Sony Camera . Therefore, I think this review does not reflex what lens should be chosen over the others ( especially for Sony Camera which you used for the test). Thank you anyway for the review
I am happy that I came across your review which is very detailed. Actually I was looking for a standard wide angle lens. Thanks you helped me decide my lens, I will go by Tokina.
after watching the video i am convinced to buy canon 16-35 mm f4L lensess to pair it with my canon 1dxii. really love your video and really appreciate it !! cheers
What a great vídeo my friend. I own the canon lens / Sony a73 and was thinking about The Sony lens mainly Because is na tive. But you vídeo was crucial to show me that are no advantages. Thank you very much and keep The good work. Greetings from brazil.
I'm a long time Tokina 17-35 f/4 AT-X Pro user and it is much better than the Canon 17-40 f/4 L I used to use, thanks for the awesome job you did comparing these lenses!
Sony lens is designed with an idea to be used with in camera corrections. Turn them on and you will get much better results. Also, what I think is a flaw in your methodology, is that you equally value characteristics or performances that can and can't be corrected in post. That sound illogical to me. The most important thing is image quality aka sharpness, if there' no sharpness, no post can bring it on. CA, vignetting, distortions can be easily corrected in post by few clicks. Honestly, for wide angle lens, most important is performance on wider angle and to infinity, not close up. Anyhow, I enjoyed your video and thumbs up. Cheers! ps - I own Canon EF 16-35 f4 IS L and its fantastic lens!
Hi, thanks for your feedback. In camera corrections are disabled so that the Sony would not have an advantage over the non Sonys. Indeed editing in post can further effect the results, but the testing in this video is limited to the mechanics of the lenses only; outside factors (Lightroom) are excluded.
Superb review, a lot of time involved and nice info you usually can't fint on review.. but it can be a valid test when you using adapter on total different brand camera, expecially to test lens performance on the edge, basic point of wide angle lenses. I know the first problem is related usually to autofocus speed and accuracy when using adapter and no quality at all, but who buy a canon lens (for example) 99% it'll be used on a Canon Body and something change on result for sure :( btw watched 2 times, the purpose of the video is clear of course. Nice to se a comparison between similar lens on same brand bodies to have a real comparison, as a help to consider the right brand for us :)
I'm afraid i can't, i did not do any autofocus testing inside or outside of this video, sorry. Hopefully there are other good reviews that answer your question, but thanks for watching.
Hi, if you have a Nikon camera then you cannot put a Canon lens on it. The Tokina has it's advantages too, including low cost to buy, so i wouldn't worry too much about second guessing yourself.
Well Sony fanBoy I'm glad you got your Rocks Off about how great Sony products are... But as you said They have to be Judge on their own brand bodies Not adapted with cheap Photodiox adaptors. If you want a real shoot out Try them where they shine not were they are put in bad light just so that you can proclaim that your brand is the best who cares ? certainly not me I am quite please with the results that I get with my latest generation of that lens mounted on my trusty 36MGP full frame sensor without OLP/AA filter Nikon D810 & I'm sure that it would shine even more on the 45 MGP Nikon D850 But so far mines & many others pictures that I saw shot with the AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f:4 VR G Nano ED had nothing lacking in sharpness with the proper camera behind them & a photographer who knew how to use them & it certainly din't involve trying them converted on a Sony Camera. I for one would'nt do it Sony mount is of too poor build quality for me to entrust my precious landscape lens to it especially with yet another cheap converter in between. thanks for the Video Sony Whore.
Excellent comparison, I agree Canon is a better lens than Sony however 2 factors that make buyers opting for Sony are, it's a native lens hence lighter, and superior autofocus in a variety of conditions eg focus tracking.
Hmmmm i have read several reviews all over the internet that the nikon 16-35 f4 is one of the sharpest 16-35 lenses ever made, but you have it dead last, putting it on a adapter is not a good test becasue those adapters are know to cause issues with focus. I dont think its a fair test at all. Should have used each camera body and shot at same iso and settings.
I have probably seen many of those same reviews about the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 that you have, but did any of them compare it to these other lenses as i have? Anyone who investigates this matter will see that such is not the case. Did you listen to the explanation i gave from 1:43 - 2:40? Indeed i did put the Nikon in last place in the final conclusion because the empirically derived results from my testing justified it. By "focus issues" do you mean focusing problems in autofocusing, or focusing in general? I nailed the focusing in all the tests of this video, otherwise i would have rejected anything out of focus that would have degraded the scores. I used manual focusing exclusively in this video; no autofocus, did you watch the explanation i gave for this from 53:56 - 54:26 (many don't)? What do you mean, "I don't think its a fair test at all?" Which test was unfair? There are many tests in this video. All gear reviewers have their own criteria for reviewing gear, which is fine as long as they qualify their reasons for it. I have my criteria too (benefiting the Sony E-mount camera, as evidenced in the video), to which you did not acknowledge, so with respect to something like using different camera bodies to test these lenses, i commented on that partly in the aforementioned 1:43 - 2:40. Also, all cameras perform differently and contribute their own qualities into the performance results of lenses, so in a lens shootout video we want zero variance from the camera in order to isolate the properties of the lenses only, otherwise one could never really know whether an observed scene is derived 100% from a lens, or 81% lens - 19% camera, or 93% lens- 7% camera. What you do mean that i "should have...shot at same iso and settings?" I did. What makes you think i didn't?
@@ggessex hi! First of all want to say a big CONGRATS for this test and video. People take so easy for granted the hours involved in producing such a test...many hours of shooting and editing. It is super easy (as you already know and seen) to drop on a RU-vid video...click trough it...and comment impulsively without having even patience to see it fully. The above person did just this. I super respect your commitment to do this test and be so civilized also in the comments section. Your answer to the above comment is a total overkill, but maeybe in time you should consider being moreselfish with your time...and the amount of life you invest in responding to uneducated people. You know Tony Northrup, he got to a resonable degree of ignoring trolls and amateur questions in the comments. Huge respect! Keep it up!
@@7nedkelly Thanks Ned, i know Tony Northrup very well, and yes he deals with a lot of trolls haha. But thank you mostly for your encouragements, and i will not overlook your suggestion either lol. Thanks for watching! I just posted a new lens video, ultra wide zoom f/2.8 shootout :D
I suggest that YOU retry the test in the right condition...whatever you consider those to be...and come back here with a link to that test. Do not just ask somebody to redo a long, tedious and as accurate as they cou do, test... just because you belove ot can be don better. Do the test, do the work, tell us what you found and contribute to the general knowledge. Cheers.
You prolly dont give a damn but does anyone know of a method to log back into an instagram account? I was stupid forgot the account password. I appreciate any assistance you can offer me!
@Callen Nathanael i really appreciate your reply. I got to the site on google and Im in the hacking process now. Takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
you should have tested the lenses on their own bodies as all but sony had to use a body mount converter which will make a difference. also, your sony lenses zeiss are Chinese made if the were a real zeiss you would be looking at £2000 +
Testing these lenses on their own respective bodies would have problematic, the performance differences of these lenses would have been more offsetted by the input of different cameras than whatever minor differences (very minor in fact) that could have been offset by adapters on one camera. Also, is it not interesting enough just to see the results obtained on a Sony system? One might say that it certainly is.
Great review. Just take a look at any major event you will see that 70% of the pro cameras and lenses are Canon! You didn't have to do this test. The pros already know that.
True as that may or may not be, Nikon and Sony probably claim that is what the pros say of themselves, haha. Shootouts are fun, that's reason enough. On a personal level tho, canon lenses are the best in my experience, but don't tell anyone i said that ok , :0 lol.
Thanks. Makes interesting viewing except that most won't have an easy obvious choice of lens unless willing to consider adapters. Also perhaps your weighting isn't ideal as you consider image quality along with the same weight as distortion, transmissions etc. If tokina were, for instance, just a sheet of clear glass (and thus totally useless as a lens) it would win several categories on distortion, transmission etc, so it requires viewers to apply their own common sense on interpretation of your scores/conclusions.
I appreciate your accurate feedback about "viewers [to] apply their own common sense on interpretation of your scores/conclusions." Indeed that is how i intend viewers to regard this video, because while statistics are a good starting point, it is the characteristics and circumstances that will compel a camera user to favor one lens over another. Everybody's needs and wants are so different that it is impossible to make a video like this that everyone will agree on, but if it gives a good start for some, then i am content, haha. Thanks for watching!
No, i did not refocus on the corners, all of the images were focus on the center pineapple only. I was surprised by the Nikon's poor IQ also because the hype indicated a better performance.
GE Video Then may I suggest refocusing for corner sharpness as an improvement of your test methodology? Otherwise you may get misleading results because of curvature of the focus field.
The center and corners were both at the same focal plane, so refocusing probably would not have made a difference. But even if sharpness were to improve, curvature would not be affected.
GE Video If the focal plane for a particular lens is not flat, how can you say that refocusing would not make a difference? Field curvature affects at what distances a lens is sharp, especially in the corners. Also, stopping down doesn’t always extend the focus plane depth in both directions equally. I noticed this when trying to take landscape photos with my Nikon 17-55. It is an extremely sharp lens, but it does exhibit these flaws. Check www.b4net.dk/?page_id=35 for an explanation.
I think i see what you are saying now, so i will correct my use of "same focal plane" to mean "same linear distance" from subject to camera, which i though you were referring to at first, just needed a moment to think about it. And so it seems that you are right, my method did not take the corner curvature into account.
Sharp lens doesn't make for a decent photograph. As Ansel Adams once said " there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ". Use whatever is at your disposal to the best of your ability and forget all these ' shoot outs '. Thanks.
