If you have one, do you like your Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for receptions-events-parties?

<p>I've read some very good reviews about this lens, especially in comparison to Nikon offerings. Love to hear real-world experiences in the heat of battle with dancing partygoers at receptions and events. Thanks.</p>

<p>I like mine very much. Don't have a Nikon comparison, because it's my only superwide. I do an event that doesn't allow flash, and has multiple workshops, including some in small rooms. The aperture and focal length are great, and quality's not bad either.</p>

<p> No xp with this lens, but i think it's very wide for shooting people because of distortion , especially close-up...<br>

Also it will be hard to find a flash that you can use on-cam ( party, action etc) that will cover this wide angle ..<br>

<br /> On DX i would not go below 20mm for people , and this is even on the wide side i guess, so that would make a 10-24 or 12-24 , or even a 16-35 a better choice for this type of subjects i think because these would allow you to shoot people less distorted if you whish too...</p>

<p>I only shoot parties really, and don't shoot professionally, but I do NOT like this lens for people. I use my 18-70 or my 35mm f1.8 or occasionally my 50mm f1.8.</p>

<p>It's not a good people length as the poster above points out.</p>

<p>i agree with Mr van het Kaar, and think a 17-35 or 24-70 would fit better for receptions, events and such.<br>

Maybe you do need both ..... it also depends on the lighting and size of the venue ...</p>

<p>Presumably, you knew already that an 11-16mm lens has a very short focal length, and that if you stick it in people's faces, you'll get a perspective they might not find pleasing. (And it is perspective, of course, not distortion.) The uses of this lens, to me, are that (1) you can do some nice near-far compositions (that part is not good for people) and (2) that you are able to shoot groups of people inside rooms that are so small that longer focal lengths will not work.</p>

<p>For using flash, bounce works well. Obviously it's up to you. If you really were asking about the appropriateness of this focal length, and you will have the room in which to back up, a longer lens would be better.</p>

 

<p>First of all, I don't have the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8. To me, the ideal party/event lens is the 24-70mm/f2.8 or 24-120mm/f4 for FX and the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX for, of course, DX.</p>

<p>11-16 is a super wide and totally outside of the 17-55 zoom range; it is fairly extreme for parties and weddings. During weddings, I may shoot a few images of the overall church or benquet hall scenes @ 24mm for FX. You may be able to get a few more creative shots with a super wide. But overall, I don't see the 11-16mm/f2.8 as a typical party/event type lens.</p>

<p>For an example of using a super wide at weddings, please take a look at the black and white image Marc Williams captured with the Nikon 14-24mm/f2.8 @ 14mm on FX, posted to this thread: <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00VwbK">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00VwbK</a><br />You could potentially do something similiar with the 11-16 on DX, but how many of those will you capture per wedding?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And it is perspective, of course, not distortion</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Off course Hector, my wrong, apologize for that one.<br>

( i have an excuse, my native language is not English.. ;-) .... )<br>

<br />I'd still go for a 10-24 though, giving you much more options ....</p>

<p>Thanks, all, for your helpful insight. I have the 17-55 as my go-to lens for almost every situation at parties and will now consider lenses at this length for special effects. I was thinking about it for working tight reception areas, but you all make great points about the perspective.</p>

<p>Happy Holidays!</p>

<p>I have both the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and Nikkor 12-24 f4.<br /> Both these lenses have much less barrel distortion compared to the 17-55 at the wide end.<br>

I got the Tokina because f/4 won't cut it in low light.</p>

<p>Pros for the Tokina (vs Nikon wideangle):</p>

<ul>

<li>f/2.8 (huge pro)</li>

<li>Better manual focus</li>

<li>Better image quality at f/4</li>

<li>Solid build</li>

</ul>

<p>Pros for the Nikon:</p>

<ul>

<li>Better and faster AF (AF-S)</li>

<li>Larger zoom range</li>

</ul>

<p>I envy Pete! I don't have the Nikon 12-24 but I have always made a pact with myself that I won't buy any more DX only glass. I do have the Tokina 11-16 and I use it all the time at events. Consider that the 11-16 is roughly the 17-24 in full frame speak. If I where shooting in tight spaces full frame, I would want something like a 17-35 or a 14-24. One of the reasons I like it so it that is <em>does</em> provide a different image than what anyone else is likely to shoot. I will agree that you have to know how to use the lens, but I wouldn't let that stop you from learning how (or maybe I should say when) to use the lens. I am not suggesting it be the only lens used by any means. But ultra wide inside and outside of the church, head table, dance floor, alternate shot of the bouquet and garter toss and more! I had a wedding reception on a boat once- talk about crowded space. The 50mm lens is considered the standard lens, but as Ansel Adams said, why would I want to record the world as it is?</p><div></div>

<p>Another</p><div></div>

<p>It used to be the best in that superwide area. But I would consider the nikon 10-24 as well.</p>