Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f/4 L for Glidecam use
 

I use a T3i and a Glidecam HD2000 and I love the Glidecam, but the only wide-angle lens I've got to use with it is my 18-55mm kit lens and I'm looking to upgrade.
I have researched and research and it's come down to two lenses:
The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L

Has anyone had any experiences with these two lenses? If so, what do you think?

Thanks in advance!

Re: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f/4 L for Glidecam use
 

The Rokinon 14mm f2.8 is also a good choice, cheaper then the Tokina but not as wide, the 17-40 is not wide enough for glidecam if you ask me. If you got the budget get the Tokina, you can fly it on th esteadicam and have a pretty wide angle and you can use it on a tripod as well and have a bit zoom to work with.

Re: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f/4 L for Glidecam use
 

Somewhat off topic: How do you like the HD2000 Zach? I currently have a t3i and a flycam nano, I'm looking to upgrade to either the HD2000 or HD4000 though, and was actually considering wide lenses too as I have the same problem (only kit lens for really wide).

Re: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f/4 L for Glidecam use
 

Well...

- if you shoot video and don't have a f2.8 yet you'll really appreciate the low light capability of the Tokina.
- there's probably a $200 difference between those two lenses.
- your kit lens covers much of the same range as the f4L
- but the Tokina is APS-C only (I think) so if you upgraded to full frame in the future you couldn't use it (double check that cause I'm not sure about it)

I have the Tokina 11-16 that I use on my 60D. You might want to see if you can try one out somewhere. Like take your slider down to a store that has a demo and do a couple test shots. 11-16 is really wide, it may not even look like you're sliding when outside for example. Having said that, its awesome in tight areas like inside a vehicle for example.

I'm probably not helping am I...
lol

Re: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f/4 L for Glidecam use
 

I've looked at the Rokinon 14mm and that maybe an option, but I do like the fact that the Tokina zooms. I get what your saying about the 17-40 not being wide enough for steadicams.

I absolutely love my glidecam! Although it is tricky getting it perfectly balanced, it is worth it in the end. And I would recommend just getting the HD2000 as the 4000 is made for much heavier cameras and is more expensive.

I already have a low light lens (Rokinon 35mm f/1.4) and you are right about the 17-40 being close to my kit lens. I'll take your advice and test it out in a photo store before I consider buying it.


Thanks for everyone's replies so far!
I have another question for you Tokina 11-16mm owners. Is there any distortion at 16mm?

Re: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f/4 L for Glidecam use
 

Yeah, very little, but not nearly as much as the other end. For specifics see here:

Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX (Canon) - Review / Lens Test Report - Analysis
(hover mouse over 16mm numbers to change graphic)

or here:
Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX AF 11-16 mm f/2.8 review - Distortion - Lenstip.com

Re: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f/4 L for Glidecam use
 

Hi Zach,

The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is a thing of beauty on it's own due to the rectilinear nature of the lens no matter where you are on the zoom range. On a Steadicam it takes on a different dimension. You will find when flying with your Glidecam that wide lenses allow you to improvise your shots than you would with a narrower lens. The 11-16 gives you an other worldliness like any wide angle lens except it is more pronounced than say a 24mm lens. If you do a lot of steadi work I would suggest you should have an 11-16 and a 17-35 in your stable. They will be the most used lenses in your kit when operating your Steadicam.

Re: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f/4 L for Glidecam use
 

I originally use my Glidecam with Tokina 11-16 a lot. Because it is so wide, you don't need that much skill with Glidecam to use it. And another good thing about the Tokina 11-16 is that you can set your aperture a little bit higher and set your focus to infinity and everything should be in focus. The only problem I have with it is some distortion and it's a little too heavy for me to be using it with Glidecam. I just bought a nikkor 24mm f 2.8 and I'm probably going to fly with that lens because it is much lighter. I am selling my Tokina btw so PM me if you want it for cheap.

Re: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 vs Canon 17-40 f/4 L for Glidecam use
 

I get that you guys prefer wide angle for your Steadicam (Glidecam/whatevercam) pursuits because you can leverage the greater depth of field more easily without pulling focus, but I'd suggest that you not get in the mindset that wide is great and wider is even better (and easier). It may be a bit more forgiving of headroom issues when following a subject, but I'd recommend practice over just going wider. The focal length should be chosen because it's right for a shot, not just as a crutch. Actually, the wider you go the more exaggerated off-level appears when you have a lot of architecture in a shot--you sense the angular change more deeply with a lot of verticals and horizontals present.

If you watch a lot of episodic and feature Steadicam work, you will rarely see much in the 11-16mm range. More common focal lengths fall between 16 and 50, with the upper range up to 135 and occasionally even longer.

Long lens Steadicam is actually a beautiful look and can be very effective but it is a big challenge on the focus puller. If you are able to maintain focus by working the deep stop and/or consistent distance, it's worth experimenting with. And it's also fantastic practice for Steadicam in general. When doing the line dance exercise pushing in on an X in the wall, it's great to punch in to a long lens for a few goes as it helps train the subtlety of the operating hand.