Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 lens

[jtg]

I shoot with a Nikon D7000 and I would like to have a wide angle lens. Does anyone have opinion of a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8. The price of $559 sure sounds good but wondering if a Nikon equivalent (over $1,000) would be a better choice. Thanks for any information.

[rpcrowe]

I cannot specifically comment on the 11-16mm f/2.8 Tokina but, I have been using the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina for years and I am very happy with that lens. The 11-16mm f/2.8 was not on the market when I purchased the 12-24mm. If it had been, I would have purchased it. However, I am happy enough with the 12-24mm that I don't intend to switch.

[Manfred M]

I own the "orignal" version of the lens (the one that uses the in-camera focus motor). The newer version has a built in focus motor, so that it can be used on the mid-range and entry level cameras. It is a great lens and excellent value for the money. The biggest criticism is that it has a fairly limited focal range (and in fact, I usually used it at 11mm). From a build quality (optical and mechanical), it is better than Nikon.

I don't use it very often any more, as I went full-frame and shoot the even wider (full-frame equivilent) f/2.8 14-24mm Nikkor.

As with any ultra-wide angle lens; it is a difficult lens to use as you can end up with very boring pictures that show foreground and sky, and little else of interest. The nice thing about it is that it does take standard 77mm filters. I would suggest sticking with the slim-line type to prevent vignetting.

This shot was taken with the f/2.8 11-16mm Tokina:

[John 2]

I use the 11-16mm Tokina on my D7100 and on a D7000 before that. It is an excellent lens. I bought it after reading every review I could trawl up on the internet and they universally gave it a good write up. In some respects it was said at the time, to outperform it's Nikon and Canon competition particularly in terms of distortion. I don't know if you would count it as relevant but Tokina was started by some ex Nikon lens designers and so the pedigree is good. There are a good few reviews and I would read several if you want a balanced view but Ken Rockwell compares the lens to the equivalent Nikon offerings in his review and includes sample images:

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

[RustBeltRaw]

One more satisfied Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 owner here. The quality is quite good, but not stunning. Focus is a little slower than I'm used to, since the focus motor isn't ultrasonic, and the lens isn't weather-sealed. But considering it costs $560 (my most expensive lens), it's damned impressive. There aren't many on the used market, which suggests that people like and keep the ones they buy.

If you're using it for landscapes, you can probably get away with a manually-focus prime. But most of those are 1/2 to 2/3rds of the Tokina's cost, and I think its advantages are worth the extra coin. Like Manfred, I tend to use it at either 11mm or 16mm, but that's probably because I'm normally a prime user and I sometimes flat-out forget that the thing has a zoom ring. Draw your own conclusions about whether you should trust my advice.

Taken with the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 at 11mm, f2.8.

[Donald]

Does anyone have opinion of a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8.

Yes. It's a great lens.

This one's from a while back.



When you're using it and you think you're in too close ... get closer. That's when it comes into its own.

[jordand]

Janet, I also have the original (no motor) version, which is not a problem with my D7000.
Almost everything you’ve heard or read about this glass is true in my opinion.
Solid and heavy body, excellent built quality, very sharp. Even just holding it in your hand makes you feel like a pro;-)
I found mine second hand but in perfect condition a year ago for about $450 with 10 months of warranty remaining.
I wanted an ultra-wide lens for landscapes, just like you.
Here comes the tricky part. As Manfred stated, this lens is difficult to use and it takes some time to get used to. Try taking a photo of a dramatic mountain ridge during sunrise/sunset, but nothing interesting in the foreground and you’ll end up with a picture of some distant hills, so flat you won’t be able to say what’s what. So with this lens you should pay much more attention when composing your shots.
What I am about to say here comes from my practice with the lens. The biggest advantage of Tokina 11-16 is not the wideness alone, but the combination of it and the f/2.8 constant aperture. These two will give you the opportunity to take some great photos inside dark and big spaces like cathedrals, churches and subway stations.
As for landscape photography, I use 11-16 and Nikkor 18-55 50/50.

PS This is not one of the GREAT pictures I was talking about but I took the shot inside a small and dark church during my last trip.

[carloshpvp]

I've got the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (version without motor) since ends of August. It is a great lens as everybody here already mentioned. I also use it on a D7000 and it works greatly. I think you can't find better GA DX - you can look for the tests results from DxO and compare with other options. The only drawback is the relatively short focal distance range but it is a good compromise in exchange for its great optical and build quality at this price point.

[jtg]

Thanks everyone for your input and pictures. Since I heard nothing to talk me out of it, I am ordering. Everyone is so great here...thanks again!

[jordand]

You won't be sorry for sure, Janet!

[Donald]

Great. You'll love it.

Once you get it, do a lot of practicing before you try a serious shoot with it. You'll find it opens up a completely different world and you have to get used to what it can do. For example, unless you want exaggerated distortion for artistic purposes, the importance of having the camera straight and level really comes into play. Tilt it up or down just slightly and all the verticals start going at crazy angles. But that can be great fun too.

The one thing all the review sites go on about with this lens is chromatic aberration. However, I've never really experienced that as a problem. But knowing about the problem just allows you to check things when your post-processing and deal with it as necessary. No big deal!

[John 2]

................
The one thing all the review sites go on about with this lens is chromatic aberration. However, I've never really experienced that as a problem. But knowing about the problem just allows you to check things when your post-processing and deal with it as necessary. No big deal!

True, but I have never seen it and of course if you are using a super wide, why would you crop to the point where it might become a problem.

[Manfred M]

True, but I have never seen it and of course if you are using a super wide, why would you crop to the point where it might become a problem.

I suspect Donald might be suggesting that the CA be dealt with in PP, rather than the cropping

[John 2]

That wasn't a comment on Donald's post Manfred and no offence Donald if that's the way it read. It was more that in order to see CA you need to see the detail in high contrast edges and if you are using a super wide it is unlikely (but not impossible I guess) that you would want to get that close. I don't doubt the lens exhibits CA but for that reason I have never seen it in the images I have taken with it. It is probably the best value for money that I have in my camera bag.