One 'L' of an addiction

I think that there is something special about L glass and I've never even shot a frame with a Canon camera :eek: (p&s cameras excepted ;)).

The reason I say this is that there have been many times that I have seen images from Canon users posted here, or on other photography forums, where I've been stunned by the sharpness, the colour rendition, the (micro)contrast and the almost 3D-like quality of the picture - when I've enquired about the lenses used (or read through the posts to find out), it's always been Canon L glass :).

Nikon's 'pro' glass is spectacular too, don't get me wrong :D, but I think that the difference between 'consumer vs. pro' may just be a little more noticable with a lot of the Canon lenses :shrug:. Not science, just an opinion.
 
AndyB1976 said:
Dan,

Why did you decide on the tokina 11-16?

Im torn between the three crop UWA's 10-20 value, 10-22 image quality and the 11-16 aperture.:shrug:
Click to expand...

I discounted the Sigma as the reviews I'd read weren't great. It then came down partly to cost but also as the reviews (professional and owners) of the Tokina were great plus the build quality was said to be excellent. I hadn't handled any of them before buying and kept my eye out for a second hand Tokina and snapped it up when I found one. At the time they were hard to get hold of new never mind second hand.

As I have the 17-55, the limited zoom range didn't bother me. I like having the larger aperture for focussing in low light and now that I've got it I just love the build quality. It's heavy but so solid. On the downside, 1mm difference is 10% less than the canon and I believe the Canon will focus closer but I've found the Tokina lets me get close enough. From memory the Canon second hand was about £150 more than I paid which covered most of the cost of my Canon 50mm F1.4! I'm pretty sure it will hold it's value too. I think one of the reviews I read was on www.photozone.de Oh, and you get the hood with it.
 
Dan1502 said:
I discounted the Sigma as the reviews I'd read weren't great. It then came down partly to cost but also as the reviews (professional and owners) of the Tokina were great plus the build quality was said to be excellent. I hadn't handled any of them before buying and kept my eye out for a second hand Tokina and snapped it up when I found one. At the time they were hard to get hold of new never mind second hand.

As I have the 17-55, the limited zoom range didn't bother me. I like having the larger aperture for focussing in low light and now that I've got it I just love the build quality. It's heavy but so solid. On the downside, 1mm difference is 10% less than the canon and I believe the Canon will focus closer but I've found the Tokina lets me get close enough. From memory the Canon second hand was about £150 more than I paid which covered most of the cost of my Canon 50mm F1.4! I'm pretty sure it will hold it's value too. I think one of the reviews I read was on www.photozone.de Oh, and you get the hood with it.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your detailed answer Dan:thumbs:

I have narrowed it down to the Tokina and Canon - I've been pondering this decision literally for months. Also read endless threads and review sites too on UWA.

cheers,


Andy
 
Dan1502 said:
I haven't tried L lenses but do have a Tokina 11-16 and a Canon 17-55. The build quality of the Tokina is superb. That's the only thing that lets the 17-55 down. As a result, there is a tendancy for dust to get in the 17-55 and whilst it probably doesn't noticably affect image quality it's not a nice attribute. I would certainly choose a Tokina again if the IQ was good and would also go for a (second hand) L lens if it was one I would be using a lot due to the build quality. As for the 50mm f1.4, the build of this doesn't seem to concern me so much due to it being a small light lens.
Click to expand...

I have a Tokina 12-24 and the build quality easily matches the Ls I've had.

Having used the Sigma 24-70 EX and the Tamron 17-50 I'd suggest I was in a reasonably good position to compare all of them... :p

Image quality and sharpness they will all be much of a muchness but the L's (70-200 f/4 and 300 f/4) focus much faster than the Sigma, Tamron and Tokina as well as the 18-55 kit lens and the consumer zooms (70/75-300s). Focus is also much quieter.

The biggest difference however is the build quality. As mentioned the Tokina is up there build quality wise. Lots of metal and well designed with non rotating front element etc. The Sigma and Tamron (and lesser Canons) just don't compare... Sigma EX finish is ok, not brilliant and the Tamron 17-50 is really plasticy, well put together but I wouldn't want to knock it... In comparison the L's and the Tokina I probably use as weapons and still shoot with them after. :p

So to finish it's not just image quality you're looking at but the overall package, which may or may not be that important to you. For example if you shoot 90% of your work in a studio then the focus and build quality aren't going to be that important but spend your days trecking in all sorts of places and conditions then it may very well be.

On the negative side the L lenses (and Tokina) are usually heavier than their equivilents because of the build quality... One reason why I will probably never buy a Canon 24-70, unless perhaps on a full frame camera, neither of which I would probably use a lot of the time due to weight and size...
 
AndyB1976 said:
Thanks for your detailed answer Dan:thumbs:

I have narrowed it down to the Tokina and Canon - I've been pondering this decision literally for months. Also read endless threads and review sites too on UWA.

cheers,


Andy
Click to expand...

If you have a lens that goes down to 17/18mm then probably get the Tokina. If on the other hand you really want the range and the larger aperture doesn't bother you get the Canon (money not being an issue).
 
I replaced my 24-135 with a 24-105 f/4 L and I was simply blown away by it. The moment I took the first frame I was in love, it's my primary lens now.
 
Just to add regarding the Tokina. The image quality is very good. The reason the zoom range is so small is to avoid most of the problems of zooms with a wide range. The manual focus is excellent - you switch from manual to auto and back by pushing and pulling the focus ring which moves with a satisfying click. I would have been happy with either to be honest but decided on the Tokina due to price and the fact that everyone who had one seemed to love it. I don't think I'd swap it for the Canon now if I had the option.

Rather than keep mulling it over you should just go with your gut feel or if price is an issue, the Tokina. All this time thinking about it is time you could be using it - especially at this time of year and like I said, if you buy a good one second hand you won't lose much if anything if you change your mind. You could buy the Tokina, then if you don't like it, save a bit and sell it for a replacement Canon. I doubt you'll get any new information to help you make that difficult decision.
 
Dan1502 said:
Just to add regarding the Tokina. The image quality is very good. The reason the zoom range is so small is to avoid most of the problems of zooms with a wide range. The manual focus is excellent - you switch from manual to auto and back by pushing and pulling the focus ring which moves with a satisfying click. I would have been happy with either to be honest but decided on the Tokina due to price and the fact that everyone who had one seemed to love it. I don't think I'd swap it for the Canon now if I had the option..
Click to expand...

The zoom range of just about any UWA is small; it's just that the Tokina is very small. Sigma 10-20 is only a 2x zoom and Canon 10-22 much the same, as well as Sigma 12-24 and I think there's another 12-24 by perhaps Tamron (?) that is a DX lens. If we can't even get 2x zooms right in this day and age (I was very happy with my Sigma) then I think we've got big problems!

Manual focus on an 11-16 would drive me bonkers, whereas (for instance) the sigma 10-20 and Canon 10-22 just had ftm - grab the focus ring and use it regardless. There would be nothing worse than missing the focus a tiny bit with the Tokina and then just ruining it completely when you switched it to manual mode by pulling the ring.

On teh flip side I've no doubt that the build of the 11-16 is very good as it looks this way in pictures and is generally a pleasing lens to look at, but alas being on full frame I can't use lenses like this ;)

I also reckon the reason the 11-16 has such a limited range is that, being f/2.8, it helps keep size and weight down. Canon's 16-35 is roughly a 2x range, f/2.8 and it is not what I'd call small and light.
 
I'd agree that the major reason for the limited range of the 11-16 is aperture too. Have a look at the 2.8 zooms and you'll realise they are rather larger than their f/4 cousins. The 11-16 and 12-24 are pretty much identical, even though one is a stop faster.

The lack of range really doesn't affect people either as most crop users have a lens that goes from ~17mm anyway.
 
Amp34 said:
I'd agree that the major reason for the limited range of the 11-16 is aperture too. Have a look at the 2.8 zooms and you'll realise they are rather larger than their f/4 cousins. The 11-16 and 12-24 are pretty much identical, even though one is a stop faster.

The lack of range really doesn't affect people either as most crop users have a lens that goes from ~17mm anyway.
Click to expand...

yes for crop users you might have a 50-150/135 one body and the 11-16 on the other. That gives you a huge gaping gap there. If you had the 12-24mm the gap is fine. 24-50mm is big, but not massive, you can often move/crop to get the correct framing there.

Anyways RE L glass. It's great. The lenses are great.

Build wise it's a jump up from third party build - build wise I find the worst is Tamron < Sigma manky EX (17-70 etc) < Tokina < Sigma good EX (300 2.8, 70-200 2.8 etc.)< Canon L. The good sigma's are a bit tougher than the Tokina's but still no match for the L.
 
Most people don't have a 50-150 or 135 lens though. The majority with crop sensors will have either a kit lens (18-55, 17-85), a Tamron 17-50 Sigma 18-50 or Canon 17-55.

I disagree with that list though. Even Sigma's good EX isn't as good as the Tokina BQ, other than that I'd agree with the order.
 
Must admit I was never sold on L glass until I bought the 100-400, which was a massive improvement on anything else I had ever used. Now just bought a 24-105, I think the L bug has well and trully bitten. However my next lens will probably be a Tokina 11-16 of 12-24 not quite made may mind up yet :thinking:
 
Amp34 said:
Most people don't have a 50-150 or 135 lens though. The majority with crop sensors will have either a kit lens (18-55, 17-85), a Tamron 17-50 Sigma 18-50 or Canon 17-55.

I disagree with that list though. Even Sigma's good EX isn't as good as the Tokina BQ, other than that I'd agree with the order.
Click to expand...

Most journalists I see have a 16-35, 70-200 twin body set-up with a 300mm over the shoulder?

So for crop it'd be something like 10-22, 50-135, 200. Would give a similar set-up. But like you say I guess most people have the 17-50mm range.


Although the better Sigma EX lenses are certainly a little tougher than the Tokinas. (I'm talking the 300mm 2.8 etc. not the poopy 24-70)
 
How many journalists have crop cameras though?

Ah ok, well long primes invariably have better BQ than standard zooms tbh. The 300 f/4 (canon) is essentially a single tube of metal with a couple of bits of rubber over it. :lol:
 
D2Hs used to be popular too (1.5x)

Yeah the canon superteles are excelent (300mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4 my experiences but I'm sure the 300mm f/4 & the rest are just as good). They feel awesomelylovelynesswonderfullynicebutreaellyhurrendouslyheavy.
 
Lenses are small, relatively affordable luxury items. We can hold them, appreciate them, and occasionally even use them to take pictures. There is something nice about an all-metal construct - it imparts a feeling of solidity and of craftsmanship.

But, if that's your only reason for buying L glass, then your missing the point. It's for taking photos. Likewise, unless you're going for thin depth of fields all the time, most lenses are capable of giving the sensor a run for its money [resolution-wise] at f/8. Even a 5 year old kit lens.

Don't put L lenses/gold ring lenses etc on a pedestal and then take bad photos. You can do that with a coke can and some 120 film, and save thousands of pounds. I'm as guilty of lenslust as anyone else, but I realise that my best shots were taken with the best light, not the best lens.
 
Amp34 said:
Ah yeah, forgot the 1D was a crop body.
Click to expand...

Although bceause they are a 1.25x crop they don't actually accept crop lenses. :bonk: (Bit rubbish for wide angles - widest is sigma 12-24 or canon 14 or canon 16-35)
 
True, but if your lens fell to bits on the way then you're not going to catch the light. :lol:

(Yeah I know, extreme, but a lot of people, especially certain pros, batter their lenses/use them in difficult environments, not everyone uses them in a nice and quiet setting with time/space to store them in a nice padded bag).
 
JEmerson said:
Although bceause they are a 1.25x crop they don't actually accept crop lenses. :bonk: (Bit rubbish for wide angles - widest is sigma 12-24 or canon 14 or canon 16-35)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain that the the Tokinas fit APS-H cameras though. :)

(They are EF lenses not EF-s, but will end up with black round the edges.)
 
As are Sigma DC lenses
 
Amp34 said:
I'm pretty certain that the the Tokinas fit APS-H cameras though. :)

(They are EF lenses not EF-s, but will end up with black round the edges.)
Click to expand...

Don't tempt me... :lol:

EDIT: I see the tokina/sigma lenses vignette mahoosivley so there's no real point, they mount but don't "work". /EDIT

Amp34 said:
(Yeah I know, extreme, but a lot of people, especially certain pros, batter their lenses/use them in difficult environments, not everyone uses them in a nice and quiet setting with time/space to store them in a nice padded bag).
Click to expand...

Thats a good point. My stuff get's used (worn down to metal in places, a few chips, lot's of scratches, used in rain/snow/sand, lives in a peli/unpadded shoulder bag with bits clanging together). So it faces heavier use than most people give the cameras but then compared to people like Arkady and full-time journalists my stuff is in great condition - a full-time working camera is put through not just use but abuse. :lol:
 
AndyB1976 said:
Thanks for your detailed answer Dan:thumbs:

I have narrowed it down to the Tokina and Canon - I've been pondering this decision literally for months. Also read endless threads and review sites too on UWA.

cheers,


Andy
Click to expand...
I borrowed a Canon 10-22 for a while, but eventually bought the Sigma due to price. I wanted the Tokina but couldn't find it anywhere at a price I was willing to pay - must have been a shortage at the time.

Anyway... comparing the Canon 10-22 to the older Sigma 10-20. Both are great, and in my experience:

Build and handling -> both great
Colour and contrast -> Sigma wins (some people have trouble believing this, but I definitely prefer the Sigma)
Sharpness -> both great
Distortion -> Canon wins (both distort, but the Canon's distortion is a bit less difficult at 10-12mm)
Price -> Sigma wins (you get a hood and case with the Sigma too. Which is nice.)

So taking that with the Tokina's reputation TBH I reckon all 3 are good - so don't stress about the choice too much :)
 
"some people have trouble believing this"

Lol, some people have trouble believing that anything with the word 'Sigma' on it can give decent IQ... there's a member on here, not saying any names, who pretty much claims that any Sigma lens is 'horrible', 'ghastly' etc. I suspect said member hasn't actually tried.....!
 
Kris

Wouldn't worry about it, i've read on many forums that L lenses aren't worth the money and that Sigma, Tamron and variuos other makes are all better.

I would debate that but can't be bothered. I do know my Tokina 100mm F2.8 isn't up to the Canon 100mm f2.8L but hey yer pays yer money.

Hopefully next year I might add the Canon EF 180mm L F3.5 Macro, reputed to be one of Canons finest lenses :D
 
Theres some great non L lens out there for Canon, including third party. As said though 10 times already, nothing beats Canons's L series for build quality in the lens and the quality in the photos.
 
ChrisH said:
Kris

Wouldn't worry about it, i've read on many forums that L lenses aren't worth the money and that Sigma, Tamron and variuos other makes are all better.

I would debate that but can't be bothered. I do know my Tokina 100mm F2.8 isn't up to the Canon 100mm f2.8L but hey yer pays yer money.

Hopefully next year I might add the Canon EF 180mm F3.5 Macro, reputed to be one of Canons finest lenses :D
Click to expand...

L lenses are definitely worth it (especially for full frame users), I've eyed a few up in my time and sure wouldn't mind the 50 L.

For what you pay for third party lenses in comparison though, one can hardly complain or compare. Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 non OS for instance costs second hand around the same as what Canon's 70-200 f/4 non IS costs. On the contrary, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 costs a bit more than the Canon equivalent, and many people claim it's better.
 
mstphoto said:
I started off with a cheapy 70-200 f4 L non is.
I was so blown away with both the build and IQ
I haven't regretted it one bit but I am trying to resist the urge to replace the 17-40 with a 16-35L.
Click to expand...

for me too the 70-200 F4L was a great buy,and the 17-40 F4L,i'm having similar thoughts on the the 16-35L and the 70-200 f2.8L is mkii
 
"nothing beats Canons's L series for build quality in the lens and the quality in the photos."

Nothing beats Canon L? A sweeping and bold claim indeed and I'm not sure it's a claim that Canon would make.
 
woof woof said:
"nothing beats Canons's L series for build quality in the lens and the quality in the photos."

Nothing beats Canon L? A sweeping and bold claim indeed and I'm not sure it's a claim that Canon would make.
Click to expand...

For Canon I don't think you can find much better. Nobody is saying Canon L glass is better than a handmade Leica Noctilux or anything, but for the Canon system the L glass is about as good as it gets. :shrug:
 
trencheel303 said:
Lol, some people have trouble believing that anything with the word 'Sigma' on it can give decent IQ
Click to expand...
Yeah I know what you mean... they should try the 30mm f1.4 on a crop body. Such a lovely lens.

I'd love to try some more of the L primes though. I had a play with the 85 f1.2L and it was great. Shame they are all so far out of my price range.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
christ, I'm glad nikon doesn't have something like the 'L' designation for the fanbois to get their knickers in a twist about.
Click to expand...

We do, it's the ED glass. We just don't make a big stink about it, because, well, most of Nikons lenses are ED these days (even some of the kit lenses). ;)

Naboo32 said:
I think that the difference between 'consumer vs. pro' may just be a little more noticable with a lot of the Canon lenses :shrug:. Not science, just an opinion.
Click to expand...

I could agree with that. Pretty much because of what I said above. Even the old 18-70DX kit lens that came with the D70 had ED glass in it.
 
Laudrup - "For Canon I don't think you can find much better. Nobody is saying Canon L glass is better than a handmade Leica Noctilux or anything, but for the Canon system the L glass is about as good as it gets."

No one is saying that a Canon L is better? Well, your statement does seem to be a far more sensible statement than the far more sweeping...

"nothing beats Canon's L series for build quality in the lens and the quality in the photos"

but I'd still water your statement down slightly to something like "if you insist on buying Canon AF lenses then an L may be among your best options especially if you have a full frame camera. If you insist on AF and weather sealing as well then the odds increase that an L will be your best option."

But I'd still say, because some here seem to be saying that Canon L lenses offer the best IQ, that if you insist on the absolute best lens for IQ then Canon's L range have a real fight on their hands and one that they wont win in more than one instance. Indeed, you only have to look as far as Nikon these days and before anyone says that you can't use a Nikon lens on a Canon body...some are doing just that.

Anyway, I'll stop being a pedant now. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top