Is the Tokina 16-50 worth the money?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by john_meyer|13, May 18, 2008.

  1. I'm looking for a normal zoom for my D200 and, as I see it, other than the Nikon
    17-55 which, for me, is too expensive, the only other contenders are the Tamron
    17-50, Sigma 18-50 and the Tokina 16-50.

    Now I wouldn't mind spending a bit more for the Tokina over the others if it was
    a better lens, but somehow, from what I've read, it's not that brilliant.

    What's your experience of the Tokina? Is it good? And if it is, why's there so
    many negative reviews of it?

    I don't like the Sigma zoom very much as it turns in the 'wrong' direction. The
    Tamron seems a good buy, but my reasoning is that one SHOULD get a better lens
    if buying the Tokina, considering that it costs getting on for twice that of the
    Tamron.

    I'd be very interested in your comments.

    Regards

    John
     
  2. Hi John! According to many members here the Tamron seems to be a very good lens. Once I used it but not enough to have an opinion. It seemed OK at the moment but if you Google in photoNet you will see how everyone talks well about it. About Tokina I just got my first Tokina lens and if they all look like it they must be good but Tokina doesn't have any FS-S system at all like Sigma HSM and I'm not sure what Tamron are called. Rene'
     
  3. I went through the same dilemma several months ago and finally decided on the Tamron after looking at www.photozone.de review of both lenses. The Tamron beats the Tokina optically with less distortion and less CA. The Tamron has a bit more vignetting but that is very easy to fix in post processing when necessary.
     
  4. I also chose the tamron. It's very sharp at all focal lengths even wide open. It doesn't have internal silent focusing, but the newest ones can focus on a D40/D60. I have an older screw type focus one, and while it's not quite as fast as an AF-S lens, it's still really fast.
     
  5. I went through a whirlwind process of evaluation myself and somehow ended up with BOTH the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 17-55mm. My bank account has never fully recovered, of course, but I have enjoyed using both lenses. The Tamron is EXCELLENT. It's sharp wide open, it's nicely built but still lightweight, and it handles beautifully. The autofocus noise is minimal and is really unlikely to be an issue. The Nikon is wonderful, of course, but painfully expensive. It's not superior optically (at least in my experience so far), but it is certainly more solidly built.

    I recommend the Tamron for you.
     
  6. Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 any day. Have one on my D300 and it is superb so far.
     
  7. Just to show you how sharp this lens is, take a look at the attached picture please. Thanks
    00PXJH-44405684.JPG
     
  8. What's on the boat? :)

    I use the Tammy too. It's wonderful.
     
  9. I bought a Tokina 3x Teleconverter for my coolpix P5000 once. Here's a sample of the picture. I got better picture without it and doing a digal zoom. I paid $75 for it and resold it for $25 to get rid if it.
    00PYrR-44751584.JPG
     
  10. I think mine does quite well.
    00PZ29-44799584.jpg
     
  11. Here's another 16-50 Tokina
     
  12. If I was looking at any of these lenses I would stay away from the Tokina. The chromatic aberration is very bad on all their lenses, it it like night and day in comparison to Sigma or Tamron. As well most Tokina lenses are very very very soft. It makes most pictures look like mud. I have purchases a Tokina 16-50mm and the front element had a huge scratch on the inside of it. So it goes to show that the quality control issues that they have had from the start has not been addresses. I would buy sigma. I have had very good results with all my sigma lenses. And they have created a good reputation over the past few years, and a great warranty that beats Nikon, Canon for most lenses.
     
  13. If I was looking at any of these lenses I would stay away from the Tokina. The chromatic aberration is very bad on all their lenses, it it like night and day in comparison to Sigma or Tamron. As well most Tokina lenses are very very very soft. It makes most pictures look like mud. I have purchases a Tokina 16-50mm and the front element had a huge scratch on the inside of it. So it goes to show that the quality control issues that they have had from the start has not been addresses. I would buy sigma. I have had very good results with all my sigma lenses. And they have created a good reputation over the past few years, and a great warranty that beats Nikon, Canon for most lenses.
     
  14. I think you are not fair with Tokina, I bought the 11-16 f/2.8 one year ago and is one of the best lenses I ever had, is sharpen like hell, wonderful construction, silence and fast auto focus.. want more, Is 30% cheaper than the original one. May be this is not the most sexy tokina's lenses but generally speak Tokina beats Sigma and Tamron. One more thing, no mater what brand you buy you may always have a bad copy, I sent two pro lenses back because auto focus and general quality sucks, so the best thing to do is test by yourself with you own camera that may or may not produce the same results of the one use for this review.
    Hope it helps.
     
  15. John,
    The above criticism of the Tokina 16-50 is not accurate. I own a Canon 17-40 and have bought both the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Tokina 16-50/2.8 to choose between as a gift for my wife. The Tokina cost did not cost twice as much as the Tamron a couple years ago, but it was about 37.5% more ($550usd vs. $400). I took perhaps 50 identical shots with each over a variety of lighting and subject conditions and pixel peeped for a week. I found all to be roughly comparable for IQ, with different IQ strengths and weaknesses that were not significant. I would have been happy with any of them, but I found the f2.8 advantage of both the Tokina and Tamron over the Canon 17-40 to be significant.
    The lowest price and smallest size for the Tamron persuaded me in the end, but I would have been just as happy if I had purchased the Tokina instead. The Tokina is most definitely NOT "very very, very soft" and does NOT "makes most pictures look like mud". In fact, most lenses from even the cheapest of the no-name manufacturers do NOT have "huge scratch on the inside of <the lens>". This would be considered a very rare aberration and would indicate another problem besides QC. (perhaps tampering?) Tokina, in fact, has been an OEM in the past for many Nikon lenses. Many posters on the net are objective and helpful, while many other posters seem to be subjective and have an "axe to grind". It's important to read carefully and evaluate the mindset of the people who are posting before accepting their opinions.
    Jerry C.
     
  16. Yea, stop bashing on Tokina:p
    The 11-16 is known to be the best ultra-wide angle for APS-C sensor camera bodys.
    Phil
     
  17. Sure, Tokina is an excellent maker of ultra wide angle lens. However, after doing the Tokina 16-50 Review, I still think Tamron 17-50 lens is better.
    Luke
     

Share This Page