Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM v Tokina 11-16 F2.8 ATX DX PRO Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5 USM v Tokina 11-16 F2.8 ATX DX PRO

June 5 2008

This comparison between the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 11-16 completes my purposes and intentions. It isn't as exhaustive as my previous lens tests/comparisons, but it is accurate and representative of each lens' performance. See each page for more specific comments.

Here is my SUMMARY-ANALYSIS between the Canon 10-22 and Tokina 11-16:
Resolution (center): Tokie gets the slight edge here.
Resolution (edge): Tokie is the definitive winner here.
Contrast: Slight edge to the Canon, if pressed on it.
Shading: Tokie the much stronger performer.
Distortion (barrel): Canon by a little.
Flare: Canon by a lot.
CA: Very close, but the nod to the Canon. Both "so-so".
Build: Tokie, though the Canon is still a solid lens.
Handling: Nod to the Tokie because the focus/zoom rings are similar in size and the dampening buttery smooth.
Aperture (speed): Tokie, of course.
AF (noise): Canon takes this one.
AF (speed): Canon again, though the Tokie is a very close second.
MFD & Magnification: Canon here too.
10D/D60/D30 compatible: Tokie yes, Canon no.
Price (B&HPhoto): Tokina $570, Canon $710.
Bang for Buck: Tokina.

Default	Field of View	Flare	Imaging Quality [11mm]
Light Fall Off	Minimum Focus Distance

post a comment

drogi1		05-Jun-2009 18:51
Hi lightrules my first time here, and I'm realy strugeling with the decision. I'm trying to decide between the canon 10-22, the tokina 10-16mm and the sigma 10-20mm I love the 2.8f fact in the tokina however upset about the 17-22 range lose. Which one overall do you recommentd? Please Help!!!

pook		23-Feb-2009 01:27
Thanks Lightrules, appreciate your opinion

lightrules		22-Feb-2009 18:50
pook, I personally use the Tokina 11-16 and find it excellent and accurate to focus. One copy I had, however, had trouble focusing on anything near or at infinity at the wide end like 11mm or 12mm. But the one I have now is good to go. I prefer the f2.8 on my lenses, so that's why I have it still. Best regards. LR

pook		21-Feb-2009 02:37
Hi LightRules, Thanks for your review, actually i am compare these two lenses and decide what to buy, I have two questions. I tried two Tokina 116, and i compare my Tamron 17-50 @ 17mm F/2.8 to Tokina 11-16 @16mm F/2.8, My Tamron give me better sharpness. i have heard Tokina 11-16mm has some OOF problem @ 16mm about 1 to 2 cm,Does Tokina you tested have this problem? Or two copies i tested are bad copy? I am hard to choose from Canon and Tokina, i like canon USM and the wide angle(10mm Canon compare to 11mm Tokina), but i like Tokina F2.8 constant and the built, hard to choose from here. Which will follow you for these two lenses? thanks in advance Pook

lightrules		24-Dec-2008 15:52
As mentioned earlier, a CP filter won't reduce flare. As for the Tokina 11-16, it is currently in my personal bag and enjoy the lens very much, especially for natural low light photography. Enjoy and Merry Christmas!

Sam		24-Dec-2008 07:12
Lightrules, thank you for deleting my duplicate posts and the sound advice. Can filters help reduce the flares? I have the hood and hands to block out excessive light but wonder if having a CPL filter will help or will that just make the scene a little darker? I am wondering if the multi-coated technology of the filter does much the eliminate flares. Thanks again. BTW, are you using the Tokina? I remembered reading your anticipation for this lens.

lightrules		24-Dec-2008 03:36
Hi Sam, congrats on picking up the Tokina 11-16. Regarding your questions, the Tokina doesn't need any more PP work than other UWAs; if anything, it's so sharp and contrasty that it really only needs a little basic touch up and you're good to go. As for flare, filters really don't mitigate flare. Using proper technique, a lens hood, avoiding the sun directly, placing your hand strategically to block stray light...these are the things you can do to help minimize flare with the Tokina. But all in all, the lens is worth some of these small issues. Take care and enjoy.

Sam		24-Dec-2008 03:22
Hi LightRules, Thank you for posting these comparison, they are invaluable! Firstly, I have a Nikon body (sorry!) and have bought the Tokina so I've no idea about the Canon. In your opinion, does the Tokina require a lot of post processing compared to other UWA lens like the Sigma 10-20? Secondly, how do I combat the flares? Would having a good CPL filter with a multi-coated glass help? I'm not that comfortable playing around with PS though I have PictureProject and CaptureNX from Nikon. I'm an elaborate happy snapper so to speak! Thanks again.

jf		19-Dec-2008 21:07
I guess the Canon also handles a lot lighter ?

lightrules		16-Dec-2008 20:58
Sorry but I do not have a 10-22 currently available. But IMO the Tokina is going to outresolve the Canon at this setting.

jf		16-Dec-2008 19:45
Hello, Thank you for your comparison. Is it still possible to post 100% comparative images of both lenses at 11mm/4.5 ? Regards

Kevin		01-Dec-2008 20:19
Hmm, Im wondering how you tested for Chromatic abberation, As every other review I have seen for the Tokina , actually for both tokina's have showed that the CA are absolutely the worst. Actually photozone.de has posted saying the 12-24 ahs the worst level of CA ever tested at their site. Also the canon has next to no distortion, while I know the tokina do has slight distortion at widest setting. Last but not least, the Canon has a MUCH wider range. As posted by many others (Ken Rockwell, Photozone.de) the 140$ price difference is negligible. If you have a canon camera , go for the Canon!

lightrules		19-Nov-2008 16:49
Patrick, the Canon is at its very best in flare performance, so the Tokina will be a step down in this regard. If you are shooting in mostly high-flare scenarios, the Tokina 11-16 is going to be similar to the 12-24. I personally didn't find the 12-24 or 11-16 that objectionable in flare, but compared to the 10-22, they are not nearly as good. I think if the Canon 10-22 can hold up for you, it's probably your best bet, since flare is a big issue in your photography. Or, you could step up to FF and use the excellent 17-40 L, which is as good or better than the 10-22 in flare performance, yet you would get L build. Best wishes.

patrick		19-Nov-2008 10:01
Thank you very much for your excellent review. I have been using the canon 10-22 but have had issues with build quality - has had to be sent for repair - even though I consider that I have looked after the lens fairly carefully. I am thinking of the Tokina 11-16 but am very concerned about lens flare. I had the Tokina 12-24 and lens flare destroyed so many photos. It made the photos look much worse than out of a friends point and shoot. How much of an issue is it with the 11-16? I know you have made comment. I am sorry but I did look and look again but could see little difference in the sample shots provided. It did not look as if there was that much between them. Do you have any other shots you can provide or can you offer any other comment. My situation is third world churches where there are often full banks of fluorescent tubes in the view, or buildings with no windows. This is where the tokina 12-24 was useless. Do you think the 11-16 would be similar?

R1chard		09-Nov-2008 17:43
Thanks for this review. I purchased a 116 before I read this. It should be here soon and I think it will be a great lens hopefully I will get a good copy. My only disapointment is close focus distance but I am hoping it will not be an issue. I was also concerned about CA but I shoot raw, hopefully not to much of an issue either. I just wanted to say thanks for doing these comparisons, I will check here next time before I make a purchase, but I can always return it if I did not like it but this review enforce that I will probably not have to do that.

lightrules		15-Sep-2008 16:17
Jeffrey, I did find that at 11mm and infinity focus, the lens would (here and there) not nail focus correctly and I'd have to "touch up" the focus to get it right. But because of the large DOF at this setting, apart from near or at wide open, most of the time even with the focus slightly off, most if not all of the scene was acceptably sharp. But to your point, I did find that the AF would stop at about 7 feet instead of infinity on the focus scale when shooting something far away at 11mm.

Jeffrey		15-Sep-2008 15:07
The review and discussions have been very helpful on many levels. I have been using the Tokina 11-16 for a few weeks now and have noticed that when focusing to infinity at 11mm the focus ring hits its stop and because of this its hard to get a sense of accurate focus (I'm using an xsi and live view really helps observing this). The pictures don't look as sharp as I would expect them to be, but that is hard to compare at infinity and at such a wide angle. I was curious if you have noticed the same thing with the lens.

lightrules		07-Jul-2008 21:57
gulati, all the UWAs are excellent. The Sigma EX is another solid choice. You really can't go wrong. The Tokina is the only one offering f2.8, so if that's important to you, then you have your answer. Otherwise, the Sigma is probably the highest "bang for buck" currently out there.

gulati		07-Jul-2008 21:11
How about "bang for buck" verses Sigma 10-20? I like the f/2.8, but the size, weight and cost seem to make the Sigma an attractive option.

Martin Schiff		25-Jun-2008 16:22
Thank you very much for this enlightening comparison. Now if I could only find the Tokina in stock somewhere. ;-)

lightrules		14-Jun-2008 16:26
40D, the 11-16 and 12-24 siblings are very similar in build, AF, and general optical performance. The f2.8 lens is sharper overall, especially at the edges, and controls CA slightly better. But that 17-24mm extra range of the f4 lens is meaningful, and if that's important to you, then the 12-24 is a great lens. I prefer the 11-16 f2.8 of all the UWAs simply because I'm using it primarily as a fast prime. You can shoot it wide open all day long with excellent sharpness and contrast throughout the focal range. Both great lenses with slightly different uses and perks.

40D		14-Jun-2008 14:58
How do you think of the limited 11mm-16mm range of this lens comparing to its' brother Tokina AT-X 12-24/4? Beside the aperture, are these 2 lenses similar with the sharpness and quality? Thx for the the reply.

lightrules		10-Jun-2008 15:52
Brian, thanks for the comments. As of note, most lenses perform better at closer focusing distances than their infinity performance. There are various reasons for this, including atmospheric haze and other mitigating conditions. But the Canon is an overall solid performer.

Fabrian		10-Jun-2008 04:13
Jojo, Thanks for doing this comparison, you know we've all been waiting for a new one ;) The only thing I'd like to add here is that having the Canon, I think it's center sharpness is much more impressive at or near MFD, rather than infinity. Reminds me of the 7-2 4vs2.8 in that way (this comparison that is).

lightrules		09-Jun-2008 06:14
Good comments, Tom. With regards to the center sharpness, I'm basing my conclusion on all the crops I've viewed (and not merely the one posted). So it's an overall assessment really. Concerning these two specific lenses, basically they each have their respective perks and strengths and choosing one over the other is primarily a matter of what you want your UWA to do for you. They're both strong overall performers.

Tom Yi		09-Jun-2008 06:06
Nice review. Having owned the Sigma 10-20, which I tested against the Canon 10-22, and now having owned two Tokina 11-16mm, I'd agree with your observations. Pixel peeping the 100% crops, the center images don't look any sharper, just with more contrast, which is important, while the corners are sharper. It's nice to see that Tokina appears to be controlling CA better. I've had the Tokina 12-24mm in the past and find the level of CA more than Sigma but definitely less than the Tokina 12-24mm. I've found the barrel distortion a bit too much when compared to the Sigma 10-20, as the Sigma has good barrel distortion control except at the extreme ends, where as the Toknia has a more pronounced but more uniform barrel distortion. I agree, except for the speed and noise of the AF, the build feel of the toke is far better than the Canon. This lens may actually make a worse landscape lens as I find the zoom range very limiting and you'll often stop down, so the f2.8 is a moot point there. I've had two copies of this lens and I've found both to back focus by about 1-2cm when shooting at 16mm at f2.8 at the Min. Focus distance. Having said all that, the contrast, speed, and the resolving powers of the lens have me overlooking the lenses faults. I've found that it responds better to post processing (I shoot RAW) and give more pop to the image than the Sigma 10-20 I had.

Al Powers		06-Jun-2008 23:58
I cant wait for a full on comparison!

click on thumbnails for full image