New Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Reviewed

[jpeyton]

Text (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm)

Looking at the test samples, this thing is super sharp! MSRP is unknown, however; hopefully it won't be too much more than the Tokina 12-24mm f/4.

[Anubis]

wow that looks like an amzing lil lens, im gonna guess its gonna be expensive

[ElFenix]

i'm really interested in this lens. though i'd need to revamp my lens range. well, i need to do that anyway. but even moreso with the shorter focal length.


after reading through ken rockwell's review of the sigma 10-20, i have to wonder why his review disagrees with just about every other review out there regarding that lens.

[randomlinh]

Looks good. and probably further out of my reach, heh

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
after reading through ken rockwell's review of the sigma 10-20, i have to wonder why his review disagrees with just about every other review out there regarding that lens.
It's probably just Sigma sample variation; Rockwell said the Tokina was sharper, while other sites (like Nikonians) say the opposite.

As for why he dislikes Sigma's build-quality, that's just his personal taste. Most people like the finish of Sigma's EX lenses.

[ThePresence]

Any ballpark ideas of what it might cost?

[Anubis]

well in the chart with tha 12-24 F/4 nikon he lists it as "Not Cheap" the nikon costs ~900$, he then lists it as "rational" when compaired to the 1600$ 14-24 F/2.8

im guessing itll be around a grand

[jpeyton]

It's available right now on eBay! Direct from Japan; a credible PowerSeller with a 99.9% rating has them for $720 shipped. Search for "tokina 11-16mm" and you'll find the listings.

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: ElFenix
after reading through ken rockwell's review of the sigma 10-20, i have to wonder why his review disagrees with just about every other review out there regarding that lens.
It's probably just Sigma sample variation; Rockwell said the Tokina was sharper, while other sites (like Nikonians) say the opposite.

As for why he dislikes Sigma's build-quality, that's just his personal taste. Most people like the finish of Sigma's EX lenses.

i understand the image qc issues that sigma seems to have, but the exterior and materials quality and the HSM sounds seem fine to me. maybe he's got one of fbb's rocks in his lens?


'build quality' is used as a catch all for several things that can be unrelated:material durability, material tactile feel, sturdiness, fitting tolerances, and assembly quality. of those, i'd think material tactile feel is the least important, but is often the thing that factors in highest into the 'build quality' review.



i thought about buying the tokina 80-400 from that ebay store, until b&h got some in stock. it's $670 shipped from japan, $650 + shipping from b&h.

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
It's available right now on eBay! Direct from Japan; a credible PowerSeller with a 99.9% rating has them for $720 shipped. Search for "tokina 11-16mm" and you'll find the listings.

thatll put the non greay market version close to 1K

go me

[yllus]

Should I take a chance and sell my Sigma 10-20mm for this? I think I'll test the waters and see what kind of cash I'll get for it.

[pennylane]

I actually really want a wide-angle lens but I don't want to deal with Sigma's apparent QC problems... maybe I should bite...

But I ought to wait.

[destrekor]

not full frame? boo!
although, it's out of my price range anyhow.

+

[foghorn67]

I wait for something besides a Ken Rockwell review. But, yeah...it looks sweet.

[Deadtrees]

Quite amazing as Tokina has been known for making lenses that are so soft and prone to choromic abberation(wrong spell, I know).

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: destrekor
not full frame? boo!
although, it's out of my price range anyhow.

+

making a rectilinear 11 mm lens that can cover a 35 mm frame is damn near impossible. making it fast probably is impossible.

the widest 35 mm lens made is the voigtlander 12/5.6 heliar. there is serious corner shading even stopped down on film.

though i'd love to see what it'd do with a 5D clickay! (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_test1.html)
(hey canon let us use live view and reassign the direct print button to an actual mirror lockup on the 5D II!)

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: destrekor
not full frame? boo!
although, it's out of my price range anyhow.

+

making a rectilinear 11 mm lens that can cover a 35 mm frame is damn near impossible. making it fast probably is impossible.

the widest 35 mm lens made is the voigtlander 12/5.6 heliar. there is serious corner shading even stopped down on film.

though i'd love to see what it'd do with a 5D clickay! (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_test1.html)
(hey canon let us use live view and reassign the direct print button to an actual mirror lockup on the 5D II!)

nikons widest non fisheye was a 13mm f/5.6 and its a fing beast
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photo...es/ultrawides/13mm.htm (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/13mm.htm)

widest fisheye they made wa sa 6mm, think thats the widest ever, ive held one of these its amazing
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photo...es/fisheyes/6mmf28.htm (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/fisheyes/6mmf28.htm)

on a 6foot tripod looking horizontal you can see your feet

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
[Q . . . though i'd love to see what it'd do with a 5D
One of my favorites with the 5D is the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L. A very good lens at a social event.

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Anubis
thatll put the non greay market version close to 1K

go me
Adorama has it for pre-order @ $570. (http://www.adorama.com/TN1116NK.html?searchinfo=tokina%2011-16mm&item_no=2)

Canon version available for pre-order too.

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Anubis
thatll put the non greay market version close to 1K

go me
Adorama has it for pre-order @ $570. (http://www.adorama.com/TN1116NK.html?searchinfo=tokina%2011-16mm&item_no=2)

Canon version available for pre-order too.

Is it worthwhile to pre-order this now? ie, is there reason to think that the price will go up or there would be shortages? If this doesn't have the QC issues of the Sigma 10-20mm or anything like that, I'd definitely want one.

[dug777]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
I wait for something besides a Ken Rockwell review. But, yeah...it looks sweet.

While he does manage to annoy almost everyone who reads his reviews, his basic premise is just so right.

You can take great photos with almost anything, if you follow some pretty basic rules.

Pixel peeping and the hours nerds waste arguing about lenses on forums aren't photography, at the end of the day.

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: fanerman91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: Anubis
thatll put the non greay market version close to 1K

go me
Adorama has it for pre-order @ $570. (http://www.adorama.com/TN1116NK.html?searchinfo=tokina%2011-16mm&item_no=2)

Canon version available for pre-order too.

Is it worthwhile to pre-order this now? ie, is there reason to think that the price will go up or there would be shortages? If this doesn't have the QC issues of the Sigma 10-20mm or anything like that, I'd definitely want one.
It seems like pre-ordering at Adorama is pretty harmless.

They don't charge your card until it ships. If you change your mind between now and June, you can cancel. If the price drops between now and June, you can get it adjusted. If the price increases between now and June, you're covered.

[FriedToast]

It's an excellent lens. I picked it up 3 weeks ago. I also have a Sigma 10-20. Love my Sigma 10-20, but the Tokina is fast glass, so the Sigma just can't keep up at night. The Tokina also seems noticeably brighter. Distortion is low.

I can't speak for the Canon shooters (I have a D300), but I can't imagine it'd be any different across the brand line.

Anyone in the market for a wide angle, I'd definitely recommend it. It's got a nice, rugged build to it, too. It's my first Tokina, so maybe they're all built that way, I don't know. It's not a shoddy lens, tho'. Definitely worth shipping over from Japan if you need a wide angle soon. If you can pre-order and have the patience to wait, then it'd most likely be cheaper to pick it up in the States. I paid ~$650 for it brand new @ Yodobashi Camera. Price was $700, but I go in there and spend money from time to time, so the guy cut me a small deal.

Some of my shots (don't have a lot up): http://www.flickr.com/photos/f...aatx116prodx1116mmf28/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/friedtoast/tags/tokinaatx116prodx1116mmf28/)

[ElFenix]

:thumbsup:

i like that ramen picture

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i'm really interested in this lens. though i'd need to revamp my lens range. well, i need to do that anyway. but even moreso with the shorter focal length.


after reading through ken rockwell's review of the sigma 10-20, i have to wonder why his review disagrees with just about every other review out there regarding that lens.

That's because KR has no idea what he's doing. He's in disagreement with just about every real photographer out there in every aspect. The guy has no credibility, and basically says so in his 'about' page.

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: tdawg
That's because KR has no idea what he's doing. He's in disagreement with just about every real photographer out there in every aspect. The guy has no credibility, and basically says so in his 'about' page.
Speak for yourself. I don't agree with KR's 'all or nothing' attitude or conclusions, but some of his write-ups are very thorough and detailed. His digital wide zoom (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-sharpness-12.htm) round-up was a great example. Maybe he just got a bad copy of his Sigma 10-20mm?

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: tdawg
That's because KR has no idea what he's doing. He's in disagreement with just about every real photographer out there in every aspect. The guy has no credibility, and basically says so in his 'about' page.
Speak for yourself. I don't agree with KR's 'all or nothing' attitude or conclusions, but some of his write-ups are very thorough and detailed. His digital wide zoom (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-sharpness-12.htm) round-up was a great example. Maybe he just got a bad copy of his Sigma 10-20mm?

The thing is, KR may have written that review on the Sigma without actually using the lens. He's done that in the past with several pieces of equipment--complained and derided them without any personal experience. There are much, much better places to get information than KR.

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: tdawg
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: tdawg
That's because KR has no idea what he's doing. He's in disagreement with just about every real photographer out there in every aspect. The guy has no credibility, and basically says so in his 'about' page.
Speak for yourself. I don't agree with KR's 'all or nothing' attitude or conclusions, but some of his write-ups are very thorough and detailed. His digital wide zoom (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-sharpness-12.htm) round-up was a great example. Maybe he just got a bad copy of his Sigma 10-20mm?

The thing is, KR may have written that review on the Sigma without actually using the lens. He's done that in the past with several pieces of equipment--complained and derided them without any personal experience. There are much, much better places to get information than KR.

do you have any links regarding this? I'm not familiar with KR much, but I've heard jokes at his expense basically.

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: randomlinh
Originally posted by: tdawg
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: tdawg
That's because KR has no idea what he's doing. He's in disagreement with just about every real photographer out there in every aspect. The guy has no credibility, and basically says so in his 'about' page.
Speak for yourself. I don't agree with KR's 'all or nothing' attitude or conclusions, but some of his write-ups are very thorough and detailed. His digital wide zoom (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-sharpness-12.htm) round-up was a great example. Maybe he just got a bad copy of his Sigma 10-20mm?

The thing is, KR may have written that review on the Sigma without actually using the lens. He's done that in the past with several pieces of equipment--complained and derided them without any personal experience. There are much, much better places to get information than KR.

do you have any links regarding this? I'm not familiar with KR much, but I've heard jokes at his expense basically.

Read his "About" page and then decide if he's someone you can actually trust. He may make a decent point or two, such as:

Most people will get the same crappy photos even if they spend $10,000 on a new camera. If you're not happy with your photos, a new camera rarely solves the problem.

However he's far from authoritative and trustworthy. If you want good advice, visit sites like photozone.de, imaging-resource.com, and fredmiranda.com and listen to photographers like Thom Hogan and Bjorn Rorslett. You will learn much more that way.

For some entertainment, here are some Ken Rockwell facts from the photographic community: http://www.bahneman.com/liem/b...ory=Ken_Rockwell_Facts (http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts)

Enjoy!

[FriedToast]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
:thumbsup:

i like that ramen picture

Thanks, Fenix :)


Here's a comparison shot of the new Tokina next to the Sigma 10-20mm.

http://flickr.com/photos/friedtoast/2396241226/

[grrl]

Originally posted by: tdawg
For some entertainment, here are some Ken Rockwell facts from the photographic community: http://www.bahneman.com/liem/b...ory=Ken_Rockwell_Facts (http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts)

Enjoy!

Funny stuff, thanks. :beer::D

[ElFenix]

been reviewed at photozone for canon

resolution is excellent, distortion pretty well controlled for such a wide angle lens, and CAs are pretty bad

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
been reviewed at photozone for canon

resolution is excellent, distortion pretty well controlled for such a wide angle lens, and CAs are pretty bad

At least they say the CA is easily corrected. But yeah, annoying. Still, this will be on my wish list.

[TheDrake]

I wonder if this would be recommended over the sigma 10-20 for someone who is getting their first ultra wide lens.

[sygyzy]

I'd like to know this too. Or the Tokina 12-24mm

[foghorn67]

some user's report some minor back focusing issues. But most still seem happy since it's a UWA, and it won't matter much.

[pennylane]

Is there any chance the price on these {$570) is due to supply-demand issues and the prices will drop a little bit later?

[ElFenix]

that's only a touch more expensive than the sigma 10-20. so, no, i don't think the price will come down much.

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
I'd like to know this too. Or the Tokina 12-24mm

it all depends on if you want that extra range or not. I'd take it over both the 12-24 and 10-2x's because it's a constant f/2.8, as I intend to use it indoors.

[sygyzy]

I have a 28-135. With a 10-20 or 12-24, I would only be missing about 4-8 mm of range. I wonder if I would notice missing the space between 17-27mm...

[tdawg]

I love my Tokina 12-24, but I'd be tempted to trade up to the 11-16 for the constant f/2.8. It would provide a little more versatility on my D2H.

[LordSegan]

Anyone buy this lens?

[richardycc]

would this be a good lens for wedding? I need a constant f2.8 zoom lens, this one might has too low of the zoom range to be useful for indoor wedding shots. whats a good 20-70 f2.8 lens for Nikon mount for under $800.

[jpeyton]

The fact is that very few people know how to use a wide-angle lens correctly without a lot of practice.

This would not be a good lens for weddings. A 2X-7Xmm would be.

Nikon has two options. The very nice, but very expensive 24-70mm f/2.8. And the very nice, but slightly less expensive 28-70mm f/2.8.

Tamron makes a 28-75 f/2.8, and Sigma makes a 24-70mm f/2.8. Good options if you're on a budget, but you'll have to test the lenses to make sure you have a sample that is sharp wide open.

[Imported]

Oh wow, this lens totally slipped under the radar for me. It'd compliment my 17-50 f/2.8 quite nicely.. now to save a bit of money for it. :o