Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for Nikon

Photometric

Anyone have this Lens? Wondering on impressions. I have a D90 but want to buy only FX lenses, but if the image quality is very good, I'll use it to bridge me to the next step.

r3t1awr3yd

I have a D90 and this lens. If you love getting into people's faces and HUGE coverage, grab one.

The only lens that makes me take it off the d90 is the 24-70 which spends most of it's time on there now.

Matthew Saville

Photometric wrote: »

Anyone have this Lens? Wondering on impressions. I have a D90 but want to buy only FX lenses, but if the image quality is very good, I'll use it to bridge me to the next step.

Simply put- The Tokina 11-16 is an amazing lens that you should not pass up just because of your aversion to DX lenses. It will perform amazingly as a 16-24 range zoom equivalent, OR when you get a D700 etc. some day you can actually use the lens at 16mm and it is in fact the ONLY option on Nikon FX that will let you shoot at 16mm and f/2.8, apart from the monstrous 14-24. Which I honestly just can't get into, as a landscape / adventure photographer who prefers his lenses to be small, light yet rugged, and accepting filters. The Tokina is exactly this. IMO it is by far the best, if not the ONLY choice for someone who shoots both Nikon crop AND full-frame sensors. (The Nikon 12-24 also works on full-frame, but not much wider than 18mm and plus it's f/4...)

Get the Tokina!
=Matt=

Photometric

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Simply put- The Tokina 11-16 is an amazing lens that you should not pass up just because of your aversion to DX lenses. It will perform amazingly as a 16-24 range zoom equivalent, OR when you get a D700 etc. some day you can actually use the lens at 16mm and it is in fact the ONLY option on Nikon FX that will let you shoot at 16mm and f/2.8, apart from the monstrous 14-24. Which I honestly just can't get into, as a landscape / adventure photographer who prefers his lenses to be small, light yet rugged, and accepting filters. The Tokina is exactly this. IMO it is by far the best, if not the ONLY choice for someone who shoots both Nikon crop AND full-frame sensors. (The Nikon 12-24 also works on full-frame, but not much wider than 18mm and plus it's f/4...)

Get the Tokina!
=Matt=

Just confirming that this lens will cover the FX sensor size....that seems crazy that they would not advertise it for both sizes and charge accordingly.

borrowlenses.com

It works on FX but there is significant vignetting until you get to 15mm or so.

Qarik

yup from about 14.5 to 16mm you can use it on FX

DsrtVW

I just bought one with my D7000 have not had a chance to give a work out yet but what I have seen so far it is encouraging. I have a Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 ATX Pro that I just love. Build quality and sharpness of the optics makes me happy I have bought both of them.

r3t1awr3yd

DsrtVW wrote: »

I just bought one with my D7000 have not had a chance to give a work out yet but what I have seen so far it is encouraging. I have a Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 ATX Pro that I just love. Build quality and sharpness of the optics makes me happy I have bought both of them.

I thought I was the only person in the world with their 50-135 lol. Great lens too. It only seemed slow to focus after I bought the 24-70 though. That stupid lens was life changing. :cry

DsrtVW

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

I thought I was the only person in the world with their 50-135 lol. Great lens too. It only seemed slow to focus after I bought the 24-70 though. That stupid lens was life changing. :cry

yep it is slower to focus but for the price who cares, the finished product is good. My life changing lens was the 200mm f2 :wow Holy Nikon Batman

r3t1awr3yd

DsrtVW wrote: »

yep it is slower to focus but for the price who cares, the finished product is good. My life changing lens was the 200mm f2 :wow Holy Nikon Batman

Oh, the lens to price ratio is out of this world.

I had the 12-24 at one point too. Tokina's pro line seems to be solid across the board. Nicely weighted glass and SOLID build quality.

Matthew Saville

Photometric wrote: »

Just confirming that this lens will cover the FX sensor size....that seems crazy that they would not advertise it for both sizes and charge accordingly.

The deal with using a crop sensor lens on a Nikon full-frame body is that yes, at most ranges you'll get severe vignetting, and on some lenses this is the case throughout the entire focal range. However on many of the wider lenses, they can work GREAT on a full-frame camera if you zoom it to a point where the vignetting goes away. (AND if you turn off the auto-DX) crop mode, to get the full-frame instead of the D700 pretending to be a 5-6 megapixel DX sensor)

Love him or hate him, Ken Rockwell is the man when it comes to testing obscure features like this, for those of us who are discerning enough to care... :-)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/chart.htm

Like I said, The 11-16 2.8 is IMO by far the best choice for ultra-wide Nikon shooters. If you also get an FX lens like the 24-70, you can pretty much cover all your wide-angle needs. Unless you need f/1.4, in which case I'd rather have something a bit less wide like the new 35 1.4... Much better shallow DOF compared to the 24 1.4...

Good luck!

Oh, BTW, for those who have the Tokina 50-135: Trade for the Sigma 50-150! HSM autofocus, baby! It doesn't matter much at all on wide angles, but it makes a world of difference at telephoto. I've had my Sigma 50-150 for 4-5 years now I think, and it has performed beautifully...

=Matt=

Nihilation

I picked up my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 last night for an indoor event party at a small lounge in DC. Loved using it but you really do have to get in people's grills with it.

r3t1awr3yd

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Oh, BTW, for those who have the Tokina 50-135: Trade for the Sigma 50-150! HSM autofocus, baby! It doesn't matter much at all on wide angles, but it makes a world of difference at telephoto. I've had my Sigma 50-150 for 4-5 years now I think, and it has performed beautifully...

=Matt=

Sigma is the only third party I haven't tried. I tried tamron and that stuff is made of plastic and poop. I almost bought a Sigma 17-55 then the 24-70 urge took over lol. Tokina rocks pretty solidy. If I can find another range that sigma interests me, I might try that.

Photometric

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The deal with using a crop sensor lens on a Nikon full-frame body is that yes, at most ranges you'll get severe vignetting, and on some lenses this is the case throughout the entire focal range. However on many of the wider lenses, they can work GREAT on a full-frame camera if you zoom it to a point where the vignetting goes away. (AND if you turn off the auto-DX) crop mode, to get the full-frame instead of the D700 pretending to be a 5-6 megapixel DX sensor)

Love him or hate him, Ken Rockwell is the man when it comes to testing obscure features like this, for those of us who are discerning enough to care... :-)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/chart.htm

Like I said, The 11-16 2.8 is IMO by far the best choice for ultra-wide Nikon shooters. If you also get an FX lens like the 24-70, you can pretty much cover all your wide-angle needs. Unless you need f/1.4, in which case I'd rather have something a bit less wide like the new 35 1.4... Much better shallow DOF compared to the 24 1.4...

Good luck!

Oh, BTW, for those who have the Tokina 50-135: Trade for the Sigma 50-150! HSM autofocus, baby! It doesn't matter much at all on wide angles, but it makes a world of difference at telephoto. I've had my Sigma 50-150 for 4-5 years now I think, and it has performed beautifully...

=Matt=

Matt,

Thanks for the information. I heard about this lens on Rockwell's site. I am a fan of his, I appreciate the fact he says what he thinks (as far as I can tell) and I have gotten some good tips from there.

You and everyone else has helped sell me on this lens. I am going to soon take a trip into Manhattan to shoot with it in B&H and try the Nikon 12-24 as well. When I bought the Nikkor 24-70, I shot about 8 lenses and walked over to their computer department and put the memory card into a Mac and was able to see the images on their computer which helped seal the deal, it was a very fun day and I left knowing I made the right decision for such an expensive lens.

As far as the Lens...I am not worried about the fact it might take an extra second or two to hit the A/F, because I mostly am going to use the ultrawide for landscapes and such, and time is not an issue with shooting for that.

Thanks again for your's and everyone's help and recommendations.

Dan

Photometric

Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 which is better?
Sorry to reopen, but does anyone have the 12-24? I wanted to know if there is a general preference to either. I like the expanded zoom range sound of the 12-24, but love the extra f-stop performance of the 11-16. Is the difference between 16-24 more than 1 or 2 steps?

r3t1awr3yd

Photometric wrote: »

Sorry to reopen, but does anyone have the 12-24? I wanted to know if there is a general preference to either. I like the expanded zoom range sound of the 12-24, but love the extra f-stop performance of the 11-16. Is the difference between 16-24 more than 1 or 2 steps?

2.8 x 1.4 = about 4 so yeah, one whole stop.

I had the 12-24 first and bought the 11-16 just for the stop. It's a little softer wide open at 11 than the 12-24 is at 12 but nothing to write home about.

Matthew Saville

Photometric wrote: »

Sorry to reopen, but does anyone have the 12-24? I wanted to know if there is a general preference to either. I like the expanded zoom range sound of the 12-24, but love the extra f-stop performance of the 11-16. Is the difference between 16-24 more than 1 or 2 steps?

You mean, *walking* steps right? Not stops of light?

In my opinion, you cannot really equate wide or telephoto zoom ranges to movement, unless your composition is relatively un-important and your subject is relatively close, in which case yes, you can just take one step towards your subject and 16mm will be just as good as 24mm.

Honestly I have to say I definitely prefer the Tokina, it's just a better lens. Even for a landscape photographer who might value the added range on the telephoto end, there is still distortion to consider which is nasty on the Nikon and minimal, easy to correct on the Tokina. If you ever think you might shoot wide open shots at night, (stars, etc.) then hands-down get the Tokina, it blows away the Nikon. The only reason I'd get the Nikon would be if distortion weren't a problem, (LR3 / BR CS5?) ...and if the telephoto end of the zoom range were for some reason much more important than the wide end. Oh and you'd have to be taking every shot stopped down quite a bit, too, cuz the Nikon isn't the hottest thing wide open.

Just my un-educated opinion,
=Matt=

Matthew Saville

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

2.8 x 1.4 = about 4 so yeah, one whole stop.

I had the 12-24 first and bought the 11-16 just for the stop. It's a little softer wide open at 11 than the 12-24 is at 12 but nothing to write home about.

According to some reviews, the Tokina is sharper at 2.8 than the Nikon is at f/4. I'm sure it's based on sample variation, but I'm inclined to say that for the most part people are *LOVING* the Tokina's sharpness at f/2.8, and by the time you stop down to f/4 it is trouncing the Nikon. Unless you get a really dang sharp copy of the Nikon?

=Matt=

DsrtVW

Thought I would throw this in here. Just for fun. Was playing with my new D7000 and new 11-16mm tokina this was at 16mm and f3.2 the squirrel was about 12 inches from the lens. It is pretty sharp

Photometric

Thanks for the image! Nice stuff there.


D7000? Show off! :jawdrop

Photometric

FYI. Just put the order in B&H for the Tokina 11-16....will post pics upon receipt.

r3t1awr3yd

Congrats on the purchase

Firehouses of Ohio

I was just bragging about the 11-16mm 2.8 in another thread on my D200, you can't go wrong.

Photometric

Forgot to post pic...



No issues with detail, either in the middle or along the edge, love this lens.