Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X

<p>Has anyone ever tried Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X on FX or 35mm film, and is the result as good as on DX?</p>

<p>I know the lens is designed for DX, but if it works fine on FX or 35mm film (even with some limiatations) I may not need a separate fast wide even if I buy a FX in the future.</p>

<p>You can use it at the long end without filters or hood. The corners will be unspectacular.</p>

<p>Most people use FX-format bodies because they want high-quality images. While some DX lenses can cover the larger FX frame on the long end of their zoom range, the quality of the image outside of the DX area, which is their intended usage, is rather poor. Whether that should be considered as "works fine" or not is up to each individual to decide, but that seems to contradict the purpose for getting an expensive FX body to begin with.</p>

<p>Thanks for Adrew's and Shun's comments.<br>

It seems investing in DX lens is arguably a deterrent to future upgrading to FX. I think it's merely a fact of life. </p>

<p>

<br /> Hope the link works, this is my 11-16 @16 on my F5... I'd say great in the center, this shot doesn't highlight the edges much but you do notice some distortion and less sharp. In my experience from around 14-16 works without any vignetting. I did one at 11mm and it made a medium size circular image on the frame... maybe neat depending on your purpose but not a general photo tool.</p>

<p>Shun's point about DX lenses not holding up on FX even if they cover the 'sensor' is probably right... i hadn't thought much about it. Then again, the Nikon 16mm/2.8 prime is about $799 at B&H right now. It would be fun to do a side by side comparison on full frame between the two lenses.</p>

<p>I have tried mine on a D700 and I think it is usable and if one day I really need to use it I would coz I already have it BUT I WOULD NOT BUY IT for the only purpose to use it on FX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems investing in DX lens is arguably a deterrent to future upgrading to FX. I think it's merely a fact of life.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ton, I don't mean to pick on you, but I am puzzled why we keep on reading this type of comments, and some people (not Ton) want to "future proof" their lenses by buying FX lenses that do not quite fit their current DX needs.</p>

<p>Today, with eBay, Craig's List, KEH, photo.net classifieds, etc. etc., buying and selling used camera equipment has never been easier. I would suggest always buy what meets your current needs. Should your needs change in the future, sell whatever you no longer use. As long as you buy quality glass, especially Nikon brand ones, you should be able to get most of your money back. If you don't plan on keeping the lens for a long time, buy it used so that it has already gone thru the initial depreciation.</p>

<p>The problem with the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 is that it has no AF motor built in. Nikon themselves do not seem to introduce that type of AF-D lenses any more. In case more and more new bodies do not come with a motor, those lenses may become out of favor, thus affecting their resale value.</p>

<p>The Tokina 11-16 is a fantastic lens for DX and is the most solid lens I currently own. I have nothing but good things to say about it, even though I use it more seldom than I wish.</p>

<p>Buying DX lenses for FX usage is usually not really wise, so if you're DX for now, buy DX glass and sell it later. this particular lens is sometimes so hard to find new OR used that it may hold its value for you for a while. But... Tony, can you give us corner crops of that door shot? Heck, 600 bucks for a 16mm FX prime would be great, and if it merely has to be stopped down in the corners, I could see it being useful.</p>

<p>Peter, Here is a 100% crop of the bottom right, along with 3 other full rez versions. All of these shots are with my F5 using Kodak E100G slide film, scanned with my plustek 7500i film/slide scanner to a size of 11x14 at around 3600dpi.</p>

<p><a href="http://ad28.net/defilippo%2011-16exa1.jpg">http://ad28.net/defilippo%2011-16exa1.jpg</a> (door full rez)<br /> <br /><a href="http://ad28.net/defilippo%2011-16exa1a.jpg">http://ad28.net/defilippo%2011-16exa1a.jpg</a> (door 100%crop bottom right)<br /> <br /><a href="http://ad28.net/defilippo%2011-16exa2.jpg">http://ad28.net/defilippo%2011-16exa2.jpg</a> (window @ 11mm)<br /> <br /><a href="http://ad28.net/defilippo%2011-16exa3.jpg">http://ad28.net/defilippo%2011-16exa3.jpg </a>(sign @ 16mm)</p>

<p>Shun, Do you really see an end to prosumer and pro level camera's having af motors? With the specs of the D7000 including Ai lens compatibility my own impression is that Nikon is doing more not less to ensure backwards compatibility.</p>

<p>I have followed the forum long enough to understand your argument about buying the lenses you 'need' now as opposed to future proofing for FX. I myself have gone the other direction and don't regret the decision so far. My 20-35 and 35-70/2.8 lenses are fairly odd focal length's for DX bodies but I get the use on my F5 for film, and for parties/events I am using two bodies with one on each. I also got them used for less than the cost of a used 17-55/2.8 which I'm sure is excellent but would be less useful on the F5.</p>

<p>Probably not a huge subset still shooting film but in my case the FX lenses have worked well for me and finding some bonus use on FX from a great lens like the Tokina 11-16mm is pretty cool!</p>

<p>Tony, those Nikon DSLRs that are $1000 and above will likely continue to have the AF motor in the foreseeable future, but everything below the D7000 will likely not have it. That is a huge segment of the DX market. What Tokina has been doing is that they'll replace the old version of their lenses without motor with newers ones, such as the 12-24mm/f4. Once they do that, the old vesion will lose value. But losing an additional $100 to $200 is probably not the end of the world.</p>

<p>I wonder what you intend to show us with that image of the door. The left 1/3 of the image is completely dark. The top right is out of focus with no sharp detail at all. Only the bottom right corner has anything and that is at best semi sharp. In any case, the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 will at best be a mediocre fixed 16mm/f2.8 lens on FX. When I shoot FX, I rarely use 16mm because it is extremely wide; perhaps the only occasions are tight corners in building interiors; in such cases I pull out the 14-24mm/f2.8.</p>

<p>Ton, I sympathize with your desire to have a lens that you can use now on DX and on FX in the future. This is one of the reasons I have not invested in any DX lenses. However, 16mm is very wide on FX, and very demanding. Even the 17-35 suffers a tad at 17mm in the FX corners. So it may be ambitious to think that a DX 16mm will give very good results on FX. However, if you're on a desert island with only that lens and a D3X and Elvis appears on the beach, then by all means snap a picture! But joking aside, I wish you well in the search for a perfect DX wide-angle, and thank you for this post because I did not even know about this lens before (and now it's near the top of my list). If anyone can post a link to a reputable review it would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>Shun - I understand your point about Tokina coming out with newer lenses and reducing the value of their previous models... 3rd party lenses in general are a risk for re-sale.</p>

<p>As far as what I intend to show... I was answering the OP's question with the only images I had available based on personal experience. Its not like I went out to shoot a demo based on this thread. 16mm on FX is pretty darn extreme, I just wanted to see if it worked using a DX lens on film. I agree that the corners aren't as sharp as they are in DX.</p>

<p>Pulling out the 14-24 is definitly a better choice, for someone with well over $1000 to invest in an ultra wide lens. </p>

<p>OP's question:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Has anyone ever tried Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X on FX or 35mm film, and is the result as good as on DX?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>1. Yes, see above examples.<br>

2. No, not as good as on DX but passable in my opinion</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Pulling out the 14-24 is definitly a better choice, for someone with well over $1000 to invest in an ultra wide lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But that is why we buy FX bodies to begin with. The D700 is currently the cheapest FX body and that is around $2500. The D3S is over $5000 and the D3X is over $7000. Why spend thousands of dollars on FX bodies and don't have the right lenses for them?</p>

<p>When people ask about getting an FX body, we always ask them what lenses they have or are planning to get to support that FX body. If you don't have the right lenses for it, you are much much better off sticking with DX, as some 90%+ Nikon DSLR uses do. By no means FX is the final destination for most people. DX is and will continue to be by far the more popular format.</p>

<p>this discussion raises some interesting points in the whole FX vs. DX debate. with DX, ultra-wide lenses are plentiful--meaning there are many options--and relatively cheap. the tokina 12-24 is one of my favorite lenses, and is less expensive now than when i bought mine almost four years ago, which isnt a big deal for me since i'll never sell it.</p>

<p>Wide lenses on FX are a whole 'nother story. Here the options are more limited and more expensive, unless you go with an older/used lens like the sigma 15-30 or the nikon 18-35. if you want a fast 2.8 UWA zoom for FX, though, you're looking at at least $1000 for glass--the cost of a mid-level DX body. even the 16-35/4 VR is over $1k, which doesnt get you any wider than, say, a sigma 10-20 on DX.</p>

<p>for landscapes, if you shoot an UWA properly, that is, with a tripod, and stopped down to the f/8-f/11 sweet spot, you'd have to print pretty big or pixel-peep to an extreme to really see a tremendous quality difference over a DX body/DX UWA vs. an FX body/FX UWA. and even then, with FX, you run the risk of the camera outresolving the lens or revealing flaws not apparent on DX, i.e. 17-35 corner performance. sure, if you use a D3x and a 14-24, you're getting the best possible IQ that almost 10k can buy. the point, though, is that for 1k, you could get an entry-level DSLR, pair it with a sigma 10-20 (which does have a focus motor) and be arguably just as happy with the results.</p>

<p>the other thing about DX is that its a more compact format--both bodies and lenses. a well-stocked DX system can do most things an FX system can do, but its lighter both on the shoulders and the wallet.for example, a d90 with a tamron 17-50 and sigma 50-150 will offer substantial weight savings over, say, a d700/24-70/70-200 while offering the exact same focal range and versatility with aperture. the IQ will be of course better with the gold ring glass, but perhaps not enough to justify the cost differential for most users.</p>

<p>so while an FX system makes sense for critical work in and out of the studio, for walkaround stuff, DX is just simpler and easier in many cases. the D7000's impressive specs show that Nikon is definitely committed to DX in the long run, and the fact that the 35/1.8 is so sharp, so light, so compact, and so cheap really underscores the value of the DX format--especially when compared to the $1700 35/1.4 AF-S.</p>

<p> </p>