Tokina 12-24 or Canon 17-40L

Chiam YuJing , Sep 09, 2005; 04:58 a.m.

Currently, I owe a Canon 300D and was thinking of getting a new lens that would enable me to shoot wide angle, digital infrared photos.

My intention is to use the lens to take infrared photos of castles but as a architecture student, I would also like a lens that is sharper and perhaps slightly wider than the kit lens (18-55mm) for work.

I have been considering the Tokina 12-24mm or the Canon 17-40mm L lens. However, neither of them fulfill both requirements. The Canon 17-40L is better for digital infrared photography (less hot spots) but the Tokina 12-24mm is wider.

So I need help to decide between the two. Considering that I aim to travel a lot (hopefully the scottish highlands), which of the two lenses would you think will offer more flexibilty?

Many thanks in advance.

Responses

Jim McDonald , Sep 09, 2005; 05:19 a.m.

Chiam, FWIW I've used a 17-40 on a 300D for 18 months now and I'm delighted with it. Sorry I have no experience of the Tokina or of IR photography. Another consideration migt be whether you might eventually be considering upgrading to a FF sensor. Thge Tokina might be a little too wide? There's no comparison between the kit lens and the 17-40.

Ilkka , Sep 09, 2005; 05:25 a.m.

You want a lens that is 'sharper and perhaps slightly wider' than a 18-55.

Isn't the 17-40L exactly that?

It really is a question on whether you want sharper and about same focal length (17-40) or significantly wider (12-24). If you are happy with the focal length range of 18-55 then the 17-40 should do just as well. And it is certainly as sharp as you can get, and will work well for years to come even if you upgrade to full frame. Much better to have one good lens than two so-so ones.

Jayesh Sukumaran , Sep 09, 2005; 03:06 p.m.

I had the 17-40L and was pretty happy with it, but I sold it and got the Tokina 12-24 because I needed a wider lens and the 17-40 was overlapping with my 24-70L while the 12-24 compliments it perfectly. I wouldn't call the Tokina a so-so lens. I don't understand why people assume that Canon L lenses are always better than 3rd party alternatives. The build of the Tokina is even better than the 17-40L. It's performance is certainly excellent for an Ultra Wide lens. Try them both and see what you like. Buy what suits you, but please don't assume that just because it has a red ring and a stratospheric price tag, it's the best you can get.

Yakim Peled , Sep 10, 2005; 10:49 a.m.

I think that the 17-40 is simply not wide enough on a DSLR, especially when landscape and architecture are the subjects.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

Chiam YuJing , Sep 14, 2005; 06:23 a.m.

Thank you for all your opinions and thoughts! I have decided to get the Tokina 12-24mm... now, hopefully it'll arrive soon!

R. Marko (No Calif.) , Sep 24, 2005; 09:22 p.m.

Chiam, When you get your Tokina and have a chance to try it out for IR, please post here again and share the IR performance. I have the Canon 17-40 and am awaiting my IR converted D60 to be returned and am considering making the switch to the wider Tokina.

Thanks in advance.

Notify me of Responses