FX Wide Angle Lens - Tokina 11-16 vs. Nikon 17-35?

MDalby

I am thinking of getting another lens to add some variety to my shots or to meet some wide angle needs. I shoot mostly sports (basketball and football) but occasionally I have a football team that is spread out on the field etc. I also do some family portrait shoots. I want to get a lens that will let me get some low ground shots of basketball players that has a more panoramic view.

I only have a D700 FX body and I am currently considering the following:

Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 - realizing that I will have to use this as a 16mm prime.
Nikon 17-35 f2.8

I guess I will get more options for my money with the 17-35. I don't think the extra mm is really going to getting me anything with the Tokina.

I was just curious on the quality, will the Tokina on a FX have quality issues at 16mm? Any vignette in the corners? It is about half the price of the 17-35 but I am willing to spend a little more to get a lens that will be a better lens in my bag.

Is the Tokina a better quality lens as a prime than the 17-35?

Thanks for the help.

MD

ziggy53

The Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm, f2.8 G ED is the ideal lens for your needs, if image quality is your true desire.

Another lens to consider is the Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm, f4 G ED VR. Unless you really need the f2.8, which I rarely do on a super-wide-angle lens, it's an interesting alternative. To quite the quality of the Nikkor 14-24mm, of course.

If you really want to consider the Tokina 11-16mm, f2.8 AT-X Pro DX, then also consider getting a used DX body to go with it. That would provide you a lot of versatility and some backup too (since you only have a D700 body currently.)

bklein

I can only advise you on the 11-16mm Tokina as far as a DX setup goes. The extra mm is definitely wider, and you'll see the differences.

I'd hate to quote Rockwell, bc I don't always agree, but he claims you can use it on a full frame with some vignetting. You'll have to edit it out.

Matthew Saville

I can't personally recommend the 14-24 for any close-up, in-your-face type action shooting because of the lack of a front filter thread. To me personally, that's important if I'm going to be bumping around in any sort of action.

I think the 17-35 is going to be the best bang for your buck. It may not have the flawless corners like the 14-24 has, but it's got PLENTY of razor sharpness across most of the frame, at all focal lengths if you get a good copy, and the extra reach on the long end is worth more to me than the extra reach on the wide end. I've shot with both lenses a good number of times, and 99% of the time I find 14mm to just be a waste of compositional edge space, and 24mm to be limiting when I need a quick semi-close shot.

I'd say look for a good used 17-35, get yourself a nice beefy B+W filter but only use it for the times when you're really going to be in a bumpy situation, ...and you'll never look back!

The only reason I could possibly recommend the 11-16 is if you plan on also adding a crop sensor camera to your kit sometime as a backup or 2nd body, or just a hobbyist indulgence. For example, the D300s with a battery grip can get you to 8 FPS, and since it's a crop sensor it has AMAZING focus point spread which is great for in-your-face type action shooting. Personally I'm really looking forward to a DX D400 for close-up ultra-wide sports. OR, a D7000 could also be used, but to me that's more of an adventurous camera body, built a little lighter and without the crazy FPS, but with the megapixels perfect for landscape photography. I'd use a D7000 and the Tokina 11-16 as the ultimate lightweight "adventure camera", for night photography and stuff. (Because otherwise if f/2.8 weren't important, I'd get the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6...)

Anyways, unless you plan on shooting DX, the 11-16 really only serves one purpose on full-frame: getting you to 16mm f/2.8, with front filters. No other lens can offer that on Nikon. Personally though I'm fine with 17mm and I'd much rather have the ability to zoom all the way to 35mm as well. :-)

Good luck,
=Matt=