Used Tokina 16-50 2.8 Atx Pro Dx F/Eos Digital

2010-06-22T21:00:00

Compared the Tokina head-to-head with Canon's 17-40 f/4L. I was so impressed with the Tokina 11-16mm that I decided to give them another shot at wooing me from the coveted 'L' equivalent. And WOW! I compared both at a local camera shop, keeping everything the same (focal length, exposure, aperture, etc), shot inside and outside and they were indecipherable inside and the Tokina actually had truer color reproduction outside than the Canon. Add onto that better speed and super solid construction. And best yet, the guy at the Camera shop was stunned and convinced me to spend $200 less on the Tokina! However, there are two drawbacks: it is heavy, esp for a 'walkaround' lens. I have a 20D and would not want to put this lens on a plastic body Rebel. Also, this lens does not work on full-frame bodies. That said, I highly recommend this lens to anyone looking to upgrade from the kit lens.

Dave

2010-01-24T19:00:00

Last year I started shooting all my video with a Canon 7D, while my standard video cameras now sit on the shelf. Since the 7D is a cropped sensor camera, I needed a good wide angle zoom for day-to-day corporate work. I prefer prime lenses and use them a lot, but a decent zoom is a useful tool for many things. The 16-50 mm range of the Tokina is perfect for my needs. I shoot more wide angle than long lens video. I got the Tokina because it is heavy, has an extra millimeter or two on the wide end over most of the other zooms in this category, and is solid and well built. I also like the 77mm threads, since I have 77mm filters. I've shot a few stills with the lens and it's sharp and has good color rendition. I don't see any problems with it at all. I use it mostly for HD video, and for the money I don't think it can be beat. It would be even better if the focus throw was closer to 180 degrees than 90 degrees, but most still camera lenses have a pretty short throw compared to cine lenses. Which is why I'll probably get a geared follow focus system eventually. There are always better, more expensive lenses out there. I think this Tokina is more than good enough for all of the video I shoot when I need a wide angle zoom.

William P.

2010-01-09T19:00:00

Overall this is a very very good lens. Its not as great as the canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 (though the Tokina's build quality is ALOT better) - as the auto-focus tends to search a bit in low light (I mean really low light) - in conjunction with a fast shooter like the 7D and a Speedlight Flash, the combination is hard to beat. If the Canon 17-55 2.8 is the standard - lets just pretend it was a perfect 10, then the Tokina would be a solid 9.25 - 9.50. The only area it falls down in is really low light situations. There are some grumblings about this lens and CA's in high contrast situations, I haven't used the lens much in those situations, though I have the Tokina 11-16mm and it definitely suffers from CAs - seems to be an issue across the Tokina line. Though again, I haven't experienced it with this copy. If you can't afford the 17-55mm (like me) this is a great alternative, I hear great things about the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 also - the big negative on that lens (for me anyway) is the autofocus sounds like a buzzsaw - not good during wedding vows. The Tokina is nearly silent and unobtrusive.

Darren

2009-06-10T21:00:00

Lens is very heavy, But does a good job for me. the only draw back that I have is you can not used the lens cap with the UV filter on, keep falling off

Havsu K.

2009-04-10T21:00:00

I use this lens at events on Canon 40D in close quarters. It goes wide enough that I can photograph individuals, couples and small groups in a crowd. I also like having 50mm available when people start speaking at the podium and I am in the crowd. I don't use my 24-105 as much since I got this lens. The AF is excellent most of the time and has nice color, contrast and sharpness. I don't have any complaints with it. The only reason I don't give a 5 star is that I rented a Canon 17-55 IS before I got this lens and it was a little sharper and had a little better color and contrast. I also liked having the IS. The 17-55 is also 50% more expensive.

Kent R.

2009-01-15T19:00:00

I use it for wedding photography. It's great for those crowded rooms.

GARY K.

2009-01-01T19:00:00

I purchased this lens for use on a vacation to Egypt. I have only had it for a couple of hours and already have fallen in love with it. The sharp and quick focus are excellent. The added 2.8 aperature rating really pays off. Switching from auto frocus to manual focus is easy by sliding the focus ring back towards the lens. No need to fumble with AF/MF switches. I hope to get some realy stunning photos with this lens in Egypt.

Tom