1 lens better than 2 ?

[ManWearPants]

I am using 40D with Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Since I am using more of the 15-50mm (24-80), do you think it is a good idea for me to trade the above 2 lens for a Tokina 16-50?

I know I will be losing the UWA of the 11-16 and the IS of the 17-55. But in the process, I will reduce 1 lens, save ~$1k, have a better built lens.

Do you think Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 is even close to 17-55?

If you have the same setup, what would you do and why?

Please do not suggest any FF lens solution cos the range is just no good on a cropped sensor size DSLR.

 

[wdEvA]

i would definately keep the 17-55 for the sharpness and picture quality from that lens.

 

[diver-hloc]

Nothing wrong in using 2 lens.....

I wouldn't change a thing if I have the lense you are using...... :sweat:

 

[ssaloon]

for me, the 17-55 2.8 is a keeper for crop bodies.

 

[Love_sky]

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS ... i will keep it ... gd for crop system

 

[Headshotzx]

You've got the sharpest ultra wide angle lens and the sharpest efs normal-range lens. What more could you possibly want?

 

[Jupiters]

Each lens you have serve a different purpose... and they are 2 of the best lens around, especially the 17-55mm...
So don't need to "downgrade" into one "normal" lens...

Cheers...

 

[metals99]

Keep both of that lens man..

You would use both in the end.. You see.. the Canon lens that you have is more of a walkabout.. Landscapes and events(in term of space constraints) your Tokina can do wanders..

 

[pentaxme]

keep both the lens, the efs 17-55mm f2.8 is a really good len don't lose it.

 

[boyboy]

please banish the idea. ur 17-55 and toki 11-16 are an awesome combi. pls dun buy the 16-50 if u haven't already done so.

 

[issic]

Second all the advices given above. Don't see the point of replacing both for one. That is a great combo you have there.

 

[ManWearPants]

Thank you all for the advice. Everyone seems to be on keeping the existing setup. Is Tokina 16-50 not even close to 17-55 to have such a lope-sided response? I have not tested the lens but there are some positive reviews about this lens.

Is there anyone out there who will speak up for Tokina 16-50 f/2.8?

 

[boyboy]

Thank you all for the advice. Everyone seems to be on keeping the existing setup. Is Tokina 16-50 not even close to 17-55 to have such a lope-sided response? I have not tested the lens but there are some positive reviews about this lens.

Is there anyone out there who will speak up for Tokina 16-50 f/2.8?

pls try and think why a 3rd party lens will out-perform a branded lens

i'm using a tamron 17-50mm myself. it sure outperforms the nikkor 17-55. in the price department!!! :bsmilie:

unless u really need to have 16-50 in one package, and u never use 11-15mm on ur tokina, and you dun value image quality.. yadda yadda. then u can ignore the advice given by everyone..

if i had the nikkor 17-55, hell no way am i gonna ask such a ... question. the canon version shd be somewhere there lah. got IS some more :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[boyboy]

have a better built lens.

u mean the tokina 16-50 better build than the canon? :think:

the build shd be similar to ur other tokina lah. anyway, lens is for using, not admiring.

u ask this kinda question, confirm u are unlikely to go to war with ur gear. i know for sure i won't, so build quality would just be a bonus. but i dun fret over it.

 

[ManWearPants]

I like the EFS 17-55 but the build is neither dust proof nor weather resistant, unlike the Tokina 16-50. It just feel cheap despite the performance of the lens and the price. I really don't understand why Canon does not give this lens a L build. So EFS cannot have a L lens. This marketing concept is just so stupid. Marketing should not interfer in product engineering. Canon should just produce every lens in quality build. Why sell something that is incomplete? This is where I like about Tokina....

 

[ManWearPants]

pls try and think why a 3rd party lens will out-perform a branded lens

It is 3rd party only to the camera bodies. In terms of manufacturing of lens, it is definitely not 3rd party. I really don't believe in comparing brands....this is just marketing..branding...nothing in relation to lens performance. Not everyone who wears Nike is Ronaldo. Not every canon lens is sharp.

if i had the nikkor 17-55, hell no way am i gonna ask such a ... question. the canon version shd be somewhere there lah. got IS some more :thumbsup::thumbsup:

The problem is usually before you have something, you think a lot about getting it. After you got it, it doesn't really matters, does it?

 

[Trapper]

It is 3rd party only to the camera bodies. In terms of manufacturing of lens, it is definitely not 3rd party. I really don't believe in comparing brands....this is just marketing..branding...nothing in relation to lens performance. Not everyone who wears Nike is Ronaldo. Not every canon lens is sharp.



The problem is usually before you have something, you think a lot about getting it. After you got it, it doesn't really matters, does it?

If it's 3rd party to the camera, it's 3rd party. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. There is also not much point in talking about weather-seaing unless you're going to some extreme environments, in which case the 40D is not going to help since the body isn't completely weather-sealed.

The EF-S 17-55mm is arguably the best lens in the EF-S line-up, and since you own it, you know the sharpness and IQ of the lens. The picture speaks for itself, but you seem more concerned with the build rather than the photos.

If the not-too-shabby build of the 17-55 bothers you that much, then go ahead and get the Tokina. In terms of sharpness, the lenses you have are probably the best of the bunch. But it's your money, and no one here will tell you how to spend it.

 

[tanslrs]

I will say keep both lenses if you’re a Pro. I think the photographs taken by the lens is the most important factor in choosing a lens instead on concerning about the difference in built quality which in this case is minor unless you go to harsh environment.

Your preferred range is 15-50. From what I read, 16-50 seems to have rather strong barrel distortions at the wide end so be aware of this if you’re into landscapes/architecture shots. CA seems to be more on both the tokina lenses and not forgetting 17-55 has IS which can mean better chance at having useable hand held photos in dark environment.

Your post seems to be form over substance, convenience over quality and to save $ in the process in having just one lens. Nothing wrong with that as different people have different wants and priorities. 16-50 is a good lens in its own right for most use and I will say go for it if it suits you.

 

[pentaxme]

my experience with Tokina len is back in the eighties so not fair to comments but I am using current using a canon L len the IQ is definitely something else. Do check the below review, I understand the efs 17-55mm f2.8 uses the same len canon L series optical len.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Well if you decided to change and sell your efs 17-55mm f2.8 you sure make some very happy camper here

Sometime preference is quite subjective not much to compare, Audi and BMW have their different fan base.

 

[ManWearPants]

16-50 seems to have rather strong barrel distortions at the wide end so be aware of this if you’re into landscapes/architecture shots. CA seems to be more on both the tokina lenses and not forgetting 17-55 has IS which can mean better chance at having useable hand held photos in dark environment.

Yes, I am now aware. The Tokina also tends to flare in bright lightings condition. I think you hit the nail. Thanks.