rwa757 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 I'm considering purchasing a superwide to use with a Nikon D750 for landscapes. Is there any appreciable difference between the AT-X Pro 16-28, the Opera 16-28, and the AT-X Pro 17-35? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 The manufacturer is always a good source for why different models are made: Tokina - Products[5]=Wide%20Zoom Optical Limits does a nice job on comparative reviews Nikon / Nikkor Full Format Lens Tests / Reviews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 I haven’t used the Opera but I’ve owned the ATX Pro 16-28 and 17-35 in the past and used them on a D800. Both were up to the task. Excellent lenses. They’re both pretty cheap now. The main differences I noticed were the ones you can get from the spec sheet - the 16-28 is one stop faster and it’s noticeably heavier. The 17-35 has an 82mm filter ring (neither of these lenses is small!) and the 16-28 can’t take conventional filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Haven't used them. Hwvr, I have friends who use the Tokina 11-16 and swear by it, Not sure if this is for DX or FX though. Anyhow, I found a review - there should be a lot of them: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andylynn Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 The 11-16 is a DX lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Javkin Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 My Tokina 11-16 DX, with screw-drive autofocus, bought before they put in an autofocus motor or came out with the 11-20mm, is also excellent. However, the testers at Optical Limits found de-centering issues on three 16-28mm ATX lenses they tested, and suggested that there may be a quality control problem with these. The don't have a test for the Opera version, and it's conceivable that this later lens has been designed to make de-centering less likely. They rate the 17-35mm lower than the 16-28mm. For landscapes, in this focal length and price range, I like the Nikon 20mm f/1.8mm AFS. Lighter and sharper, but obviously doesn't go as wide or as long. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 I have not used any of the lenses in question (but have experience with both the 11-16 and the 11-20 (both DX lenses)). Lenstip Tokina AT-X PRO FX SD 16-28 mm f/2.8 (IF) review - Image resolution - LensTip.com rates the optical quality of the lens quite high - about at par with the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC (that I do own); equal in the center, the Tokina better at the DX edge and the Tamron better at the FX edge. I can certainly attest to the good optical quality of the Tamron; it very clearly beats my Nikon 16-35/4 VR. I recommend the Tamron (I have the first version, not the current G2 one) - but I expect there will be quite a bit of price difference between the Tamron and either of the Tokinas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Maybe dumb question, does it have to be a Tokina lens ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwa757 Posted January 25, 2020 Author Share Posted January 25, 2020 Maybe dumb question, does it have to be a Tokina lens ? No, it does not have to be Tokina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CvhKaar Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 No, it does not have to be Tokina. In that cas possibly the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD G2 mihgt also be something you want to have a look at .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 I have a very old version of Tokina AT-X pro 17-35 and, if the current optical design remains the same, I would not recommend it. The contrast and overall flare at full aperture is terrible. No experience with the other two Tokina lenses I'm afraid. OTOH, the DX 11-20mm f/2.8 Tokina is superb and in a different league altogether from my FF 17-35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_driscoll Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 The manufacturer is always a good source for why different models are made: Tokina - Products[5]=Wide%20Zoom Optical Limits does a nice job on comparative reviews Nikon / Nikkor Full Format Lens Tests / Reviews That's what I used to think (they used to photozone.de). I'd been puzzled for sometime by the vertical scale on their MTF measurements - apparently line widths per picture height, in that they did seem a little high in some cases. Then I read an article on lenstip.com - Why the Lenstip reviews differ from others? - Where could the differences stem from? - LensTip.com ... which makes the observation that some of photozone's measuremenst exceed the resolution of the sensor! It turns out that photozone were using sharpening!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 (edited) One real cause of so many differences in reviews is that the sample variability is often much wider than people suspect. Although sample sizes at LensRentals lens assessments are not huge, they are one of the few reviews that is not based on one (1, count it) more-or-less randomly chosen specimen. I have a few Tokina lenses, and they have been very good, FWTW Edited January 27, 2020 by JDMvW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now