Anyone using the Tokina 17-35 f4 or 16-28 f2.8 lens?

<p>My widest lens is a non D 20 f2.8 and a Tokina 20-35 f2.8. I'd like to get something wider and I'm considering one of these Tokina lenses and would like to read your opinions.</p>

<p>Mark, I would be curious of your opinion of your 20 Nikkor vs the Tokina zoom at 20mm. I have used several lenses in the 20mm range. All have been capable of generating a decent image, but none seem to be outstanding on a D800.</p>

<p>Have you tried the Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G</p>

<p>Agreed, the 14-24mm f/2.8 Zoom-Nikkor is the only lens that's really going to cut it with a D800 at focal lengths below 24mm. Provided size, weight, cost, poor lens shading and the lack of a filter are no object.</p>

<p>My experience with the Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 ATX is that it's pretty awful wide open, but only needs to be stopped down to f/3.5 to return acceptable IQ. The contrast is still fairly low at all apertures, and flare is an issue. Still it's a lot smaller and lighter than the 14-24mm Nikkor and offers (probably) the most used range of wideangle focal lengths. The 20mm f/2.8 prime Nikkor - either AF or MF version - is a better lens. If you want something shorter and cheaper it's worth looking at the Samyang 14mm f/2.8. No AF, but there's so much DoF it hardly needs accurate focus.</p>

<p>I don't know about the more modern Tokinas, since the 14-24mm Nikkor does most of what I want from a wideangle, and the Tamron 28-75mm SP f/2.8 takes over at the longer end.</p>

<p>Robert, the 20-35 is a decent lens on my D700 and so is the 20 as long as I stop it down to f4 - f5.6. At those apertures both are very sharp. On the D800 both lenses seem less sharp to my eyes. That's why I want to upgrade to something better suited to digital. I'd love to get the 14-24 but as an enthusiast I can't afford it. If I made a living with my photography I'd own the 14-24. I'm leaning towards the 17-35 because it's a cheaper option but the 16-28 may be the better lens. Watching YouTube videos the 16-28 rates highly for both Canon and Nikon.</p>

<p>I have the older Sigma 12-24, not the greatest lens but lots of fun. I find that I do not use wide very often so I wanted to stay budget aware. The Sigma did the trick. It is seriously wide.</p>

<p>I have and use constantly the Tokina 16-28 2.8. I love this lens. I shoot bar and bat mitzvahs -- about 40 a year -- and this lens is my go-to for tight, close-in shots of dancing as well as ultra-wide images of large groups or even room shots. I always use it with flash, so it's always at f/5.6 or greater, but performance is superb and it produces tack-sharp prints. I used it's DX brother, the 11-16, when I used D7000s, and had similar experiences. I am now shooting this lens on a D610. The price difference vs. the 14-24 is significant and performance is pro-level.</p>

From a review i saw of it showing it at 28 22 and 16mm and its clear the lens was produced to be sharpest at 16 and gets

less so on its way till it gets to 28mm.

 

I was ready to pull the plug but after seeing that revIew For now I will pass since i need it to be sharper from 20-28. Its not

a bad thing but for my needs, i dont shoot wide so often. Shooting people at anything wider than 24mm distorts and pulls

them so Ill just stay with my tamron 17-35 for now

<p>I traded my beloved Nikon 14-24mm for the 16-28mm... yes, the tokina is that good, even on my D800. insane optics at 1/2 the price plus 14mm was always too wide for my taste...</p>

I've used both the Tokinas on a D800 and owned the 17-35 before I got out of DSLRs. They're both fantastic. The 17-35

ended up being my choice because it's nearly as good, smaller and cheaper, and I didn't have a need for f/2.8 in an

ultrawide, but if you do want f/2.8 the 16-28 gave me nothing to complain about.

<p>I currently use the Tokina 17-35/F4 on my old 14mp Kodak. It's excellent as far as sharpness & edges remain straight with little to no distortion. The rear element of the lens is actually slightly concave.</p>

<p>The only negative comment that I have found is the lens' focusing scale is sometimes incorrect @ 17mm. KR's review is pretty much, spot on. (Avoid looking at the scale and all is well.) The consumer Nikon 18-35 in comparison, has a lot of mustache distortion.</p>

<p>At half the cost of a used Nikon 17-35/2.8 with little other choices, it's almost a "no brainer". The few sample pix of the lens on a higher MP body fare favorably, though most were taken less than wide open.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.</p>