[Brightcolours]

That is a very nice surprise, I hope it will give you very nice images.

[toni-a]

Another great surprise: I have a great sample, the pictures are have good sharpness border to border, and I liked its colors.

I was reluctant to tokinas first since my 24-200 is a poor performer, however optically speaking this one has nothing to do wand Iith my old lens.

On the downside, it is quite heavy and I am starting to learn using its new perspectives, I am finding it quite hard to compose with such a lens

[Klaus]

Ultra-wides are tough in terms of image composition.

They require a decent foreground which is where most people struggle IMHO.

That being said - HAVE FUN!

[toni-a]

Was having a lot of fun with my new lens till today, for valentine my wife who had offered me the tokina 16-28 took me to jewelry and I had to get the diamond ring she chose...

It would have been much cheaper getting Canon 16-35f2.8 MKII

So my advice get your lenses yourself...

[Brightcolours]

Was having a lot of fun with my new lens till today, for valentine my wife who had offered me the tokina 16-28 took me to jewelry and I had to get the diamond ring she chose...

It would have been much cheaper getting Canon 16-35f2.8 MKII

So my advice get your lenses yourself...

That Canon is not better sharpness wise though. Only real plus is the better sealing and the USM. The 16-35mm f4 L IS USM would be a better choice

[Polkaha]

For some reason, nobody seems to like the Canon 20mm f2.8.

This lens is unbelievable sharp in the centre, and stopped down to f4.0 also in the corners and the biggest surprise, it is very affordable.

The other gem is the Canon 40mm f/2.8 with a DXO score of 28.

Having these two lenses will make expensive wide angle zooms superfluous.

The Canon 16-35 f2.8 II has a DXO score of 20 and the 16-35mm f4.0L IS has a score of 19, although I would prefer the latter.


 

[Brightcolours]

For some reason, nobody seems to like the Canon 20mm f2.8.

This lens is unbelievable sharp in the centre, and stopped down to f4.0 also in the corners and the biggest surprise, it is very affordable.

The other gem is the Canon 40mm f/2.8 with a DXO score of 28.

Having these two lenses will make expensive wide angle zooms superfluous.

The Canon 16-35 f2.8 II has a DXO score of 20 and the 16-35mm f4.0L IS has a score of 19, although I would prefer the latter.

DXO is worthless, when trying to assess lenses. Your quoted numbers are a very good illustration of that. Better just ignore DXO lens "tests".

What is true is that the Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM is quite a nice little lens. Nothing UWA about it, though.

[Rover]

Ken Rockwell likes the 20/2.8 with its "intelligent field curvature". (*snicker*) But Ken is a weird type. Most of the other tests I've seen (the Photozone itself, SLRGear, TDP and the now-defunct SLRLensReview.com) seem to indicate that it'd be better not to bother. To quote the SLRLensReview on this one:

 

The lens performance around borders on a full frame 5D was outright miserable - wide open or stopped down, borders were basically iffy throughout the entire tested aperture range. Image quality in the center was the only bright spot here - at f/2.8 center was reasonably sharp and quality improves once you stop down, reaching a respectable level by f/5.6. Conclusion? Performance of the lens on a full-frame body only complicates things - should you ever go after a lens with a decent center and lackluster border quality?

http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/can...ens-review (That site hasn't been updated in ages but old reviews are still accessible. It was the only site I've found to carry a review of my favourite Sigma 14mm f/2.8, that's why I liked it. )

 

Re: the 20/2.8 again, I would've probably chosen the 17-40L instead if I had been lacking money for something better. Although, if I had been wanting financially, I would not have gone FF at all because good glass is mostly expensive in that land - things are usually cheaper in the APS-C realm.

[Brightcolours]

Ken Rockwell likes the 20/2.8 with its "intelligent field curvature". (*snicker*) But Ken is a weird type. Most of the other tests I've seen (the Photozone itself, SLRGear, TDP and the now-defunct SLRLensReview.com) seem to indicate that it'd be better not to bother. To quote the SLRLensReview on this one:

 

http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/can...ens-review (That site hasn't been updated in ages but old reviews are still accessible. It was the only site I've found to carry a review of my favourite Sigma 14mm f/2.8, that's why I liked it. )

 

Re: the 20/2.8 again, I would've probably chosen the 17-40L instead if I had been lacking money for something better. Although, if I had been wanting financially, I would not have gone FF at all because good glass is mostly expensive in that land - things are usually cheaper in the APS-C realm.

Lenstip, Photozone and SLRlensreview all test the lens at MFT distance, which is very close by for a 20mm lens due to the chart size. Hence, not always do such tests show how a lens performs in real usage, especially with short focal length/wide FOV lenses.

 

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/10/...uLMNSl3KfR

 

https://pixelpeeper.com/lenses/?lens=724...none&res=3

 

It is a better performer than the 17-40mm f4 L USM. Although one would not say that when just looking at such MFT tests, without  realizing the test constraints. Especially with DPP and its lens correction, the EF 20mm f2.8 is a pretty good proposition, considering its price and weight/size. 

[chrismiller]

the corners at17mm of the 17-40 are terrible.