• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Reviewed

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.
Click to expand...
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 round-up was a great example. Maybe he just got a bad copy of his Sigma 10-20mm?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 round-up was a great example. Maybe he just got a bad copy of his Sigma 10-20mm?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 round-up was a great example. Maybe he just got a bad copy of his Sigma 10-20mm?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

do you have any links regarding this? I'm not familiar with KR much, but I've heard jokes at his expense basically.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 round-up was a great example. Maybe he just got a bad copy of his Sigma 10-20mm?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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

Enjoy!
 
been reviewed at photozone for canon

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

At least they say the CA is easily corrected. But yeah, annoying. Still, this will be on my wish list.
 
I wonder if this would be recommended over the sigma 10-20 for someone who is getting their first ultra wide lens.
 
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.
 
Is there any chance the price on these {$570) is due to supply-demand issues and the prices will drop a little bit later?
 
that's only a touch more expensive than the sigma 10-20. so, no, i don't think the price will come down much.
 
Originally posted by: sygyzy
I'd like to know this too. Or the Tokina 12-24mm
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. 😱
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top