PDA

View Full Version : Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - best ultra-wide for APS-C?



Visual Reality
10-03-2008, 10:28 PM
This thing seems too good to be true, but all reports seem to back it up.

Is this really the king of the hill for ultra-wides? This will fill a critical gap in my lineup and I'm hankering for some wiiiiide shots :D

Edit: Found the Flickr group ;)

http://flickr.com/groups/tokina11-16mm/

e_dawg
10-03-2008, 11:14 PM
I've only heard good things about it, but personally, i find it doesn't go long enough for what I use this type of lens for. 11 mm is about perfect on the wide end, but I'd really like at least 20 mm on the long end, if not 24 mm.

Rooz
10-04-2008, 12:37 AM
why ? its an ultrawide angle lens, it doesnt need a long end. i'd be treating this as a prime lens for a quarter of the cost. the only thing i would caution you on is there are some bad samples of this lens around. make sure you get it from a good dealer with return policy.

dxrocnxj
10-04-2008, 01:13 AM
ive heard nothing but good things about this lens. thats all i really have but im sure the extra 'positive reinforcement' helps.

Visual Reality
10-04-2008, 08:02 AM
The other lenses I compared it to (online) are the Tokina 12-24, Nikon 12-24, Tamron 11-18, Sigma 10-20, and Sigma 12-24 (which btw is the only full frame of this type other than the Nikon 14-24). The Tokina seems superior from all reviews and the price is pretty good too. Its also smaller than the huge Nikkor 14-24 2.8 which seems to be the only lens that is better, but for 1/3 of the cost.

Looks like when the time comes this will be my next lens. I'd then have almost everything covered with pretty good bang for the buck: 11-16 2.8, 17-50 2.8, 35mm f/2, 70-300 4.5-5.6.

rawpaw18
10-04-2008, 11:09 AM
Here is the new Tammy, I may be interested check it out.
http://www.tamron.com/news/35mm/1024di2.asp

Gintaras
10-04-2008, 11:42 AM
well well, i know i am not Nikon guy and should not post here my opinion but let me violate this today.

i have not checked if this lens is available for Nikon, but for Canon they say this lens is the best fastest ultra wide. for the cost it sounds like a killer lens compared to more expensive yet not as wide Nikon and slower Canons 10-22. IMO Tokina knows well what to do, as they give you quality glass fast lens put into a sturdy pro-like body to make you feel comfortable about your purchase. i also have seen mostly good reviews for Tokina, not only this lens... take their 16-50/2.8 not mention a highly popular 12-24... all they sound better than Sigma or Tamron from what i heard.

PS: i would consider this lens as serious alternative either to Canon or Nikon, for me personally.

Visual Reality
10-04-2008, 12:21 PM
It is.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554036-REG/Tokina_ATX116PRODXN_11_16mm_f_2_8_AT_X_116.html

erichlund
10-04-2008, 01:05 PM
The one lens that should not even be mentioned in this category is the Nikkor 14-24. It's an entirely different category of lens. If you have the money and want the fewest compromises in image quality, then the 14-24 is it. It's better in it's range than any Nikkor, including their primes, which is Nikon's selling point for the lens.

That aside, I have the Tokina 12-24, and I've never had any complaints. Well, OK, the only thing I would hope for is that it's a little less susceptible to flare and ghosting. It's a lot of work cloning that out if it happens, and there are certain types of shots that one likes to take with a wide angle lens where your going to be prone to that sort of thing.

Visual Reality
10-04-2008, 03:25 PM
The one lens that should not even be mentioned in this category is the Nikkor 14-24. It's an entirely different category of lens. If you have the money and want the fewest compromises in image quality, then the 14-24 is it. It's better in it's range than any Nikkor, including their primes, which is Nikon's selling point for the lens.
Right, which is why it wasn't mentioned except for in parenthesis ;)

Would be great, except for the price, and its big and heavy.

Rooz
10-04-2008, 03:44 PM
i only had the tokina for a couple of days. the size and weight of it are much less than the nikkor. so if thats an important issue to you then absolutely this is the lens to get. (surprisngly though the nikkor feels better balanced and easier to use on a d300 ??).

like every other tokina, its also built like a tank

Visual Reality
10-04-2008, 04:18 PM
Rooz, why did you only have it for a couple days?

Rooz
10-04-2008, 04:32 PM
the AF was faulty.

Visual Reality
10-04-2008, 05:26 PM
Well that sucks, but I guess on a lens like this it isn't as critical. I'd use it on infinity 90% of the time probably.

Edit: Found the Flickr group ;)

http://flickr.com/groups/tokina11-16mm/

e_dawg
10-05-2008, 03:11 AM
why ? its an ultrawide angle lens, it doesnt need a long end. i'd be treating this as a prime lens for a quarter of the cost.

Why? It's due to my style of shooting and focal length preferences. I don't just want an ultra wide prime and I don't want to switch lenses all the time when I shoot other things that require more normal focal lengths. If it tops out at 16 mm, that means I can't use it as a walkaround / travel / urban / architecture / indoor lens and would have to switch lenses a dozen times a day.

I like using lenses like the 12-24, 14-24, 15-30, the Olympus 11-22 (that is equivalent to a 14-28 in APS-C) that have both a true wide angle end (somewhere in the 10-14 mm range) and a "somewhat normal" end (somewhere between 20-30 mm) because then you can use it as two prime lenses for a quarter of the cost.

Rooz
10-05-2008, 04:03 AM
true, but the reason the focal range is so narrow is primarily to maintain the quality of the optics. extend the focal range and you comprimise the optical performance and/ or the size, (not to mention aperture) . i think people that buy this particular lens are people that want the best quality they can get this side of $1k. you think of every other lens that goes anywhere near that wide, the comprimise on optical performance, is staggering.

i guess it goes back to the old story...quality vs flexibility.

e_dawg
10-05-2008, 09:11 AM
And you're right, of course, which is why I tend to use my Olympus setup for my "wide walkaround" focal length range needs, as even the Tokina 12-24 does leave me a bit unsatisfied with the results. It goes wider than the Olympus 11-22 (14-28 APS-C), but I'll sacrifice a bit on the wide end as the quality at 12 mm on the 12-24 isn't fantastic anyways. I haven't found a lens on APS-C yet that gives me the wide range of the Oly 11-22 with the IQ corner to corner, speed (f/2.8-3.5), and compact size/weight. The new Tokina has everything except for the wide focal length range. Sigh...