Tokina 11 - 16 and D600

<p>Has anyone any experience with this combination?<br>

According to the sage and sober KR, this lens works on the FX bodies with little or no vignetting when set to 16mm. Can anyone substantiate that finding?</p>

<p>I have had great fun with this lens on my D300, but my NAS is acting up.</p>

<p>So you're wanting to buy a Nikon D600 to go with your DX Tokina 11-16mm lens?</p>

<p>Surreal or what......?........:-)</p>

Why bother? If you can afford a D600, splurge a bit and swap out the 11-16 for the 16-28. It's quite good.

<p>LOL, Mike: shhhh!<br>

My wife might come across this forum!</p>

<p>Or just find a cheap Sigma 15-30, it was mind as my temp UWA and I still have after 3.5 years on FX.</p>

<p>.......either way, 16mm isn't <em><strong>that</strong></em> wide on FX! The Sigma 12-24mm FX <strong><em>is</em></strong> pretty wide. Sadly, IQ is a bit iffy wide open....:-(</p>

<p>Samyiang / Rokinon 14/2.8 is an inexpensive great solution for D600. Manual focus at this FL is not a problem.</p>

<p>16mm on FX not all that wide? It's as wide as the 11mm of the Tokina on DX?<br>

I picked up a AiS 20mm f/3.5 from eBay for little money some time ago to replace the Tokina 12-24 I had on DX. Perfectly nice little lens, and being comparable to 13mm on DX, quite wide too.</p>

<p>Wouter, the OP wants to use the 16mm 'end' of the <strong>DX</strong> 11-16mm Tokina on an <strong>FX</strong> D600.... and yes 16mm is 16mm (if it works!!), but if he wants W.I.D.E. I'd go with Hans' or Mihai's idea.... ie 10-20mm or 9mm DX FOV.</p>

<p>Mike, not sure we're saying the same thing of something completely different... the way I read the OP, he's contemplating a FX camera, and asks how good the 16mm end is? That's different from "I want to go much wider than that"... I do not disagree with the Samyang option at all, considered the lens myself, but 20mm turns out to be wide enough for me (and the Samyang too large). But, yes, if you want wider, sure, it's the best budget option. And I'd take it every time over taking a DX lens and hoping "it's good enough".</p>

<p>Just because KR says it works without vignetting on FX does not mean that the corners are any good at all. Remember, even HE admits his site is purely entertainment.</p>

<p>It's not designed for FX, and if you can't afford to go with lenses that are great on FX, you should probably not upgrade to FX. That's why I'm still shooting my D90.</p>

<p>Great lens though, on DX.</p>

<p>My advice would be to hold out until you can bite the bullet and get the 14-24 f/2.8 AF-S G Zoom Nikkor. Best load of money I ever threw at a lens. Replaces a bagfull of primes or lesser zooms and spits in their faces with superior corner definition.</p>

<p>BTW, the "sage and sober" one also raves about Tokina's little old 17mm f/3.5 piece of junk ultrawide.</p>

<p>I've found this interesting article, documenting among other interesting issues the way Tokina 11-16 can be used as a 16mm prime on D600. Pictures are included. Read <a href="http://www.slrlounge.com/how-to-use-a-crop-sensor-lens-on-a-full-frame-dslr">here</a> please.</p>

<p>That was a most useful test, comparing the Tokina 11-16 on D7000 to a Nikon 14-24 on D600! The tester was able to get pictures with no visible vignetting while shooting the crop frame Tokina on the full-frame D600. Thanks Mihai.</p>

<p>Those corners with the Tokina 11-16 on full frame looked HORRIBLE to me, and that was at F16. I would have love to have seen f5,6 or f4. I bet they'd be atrocious.</p>

<p>If you're buying an FX camera to use DX lenses, you're buying the wrong camera. If you're buying an FX camera and can't afford good FX lenses, equally so.</p>

<p>There was an experiment last year using the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 on a D700: <a href="00Zl9G">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Zl9G</a><br>

Based on images poated to that thread, it doesn't seem to be a good combo.</p>

<p>While both the D600 and D700 are FX, the D600 has twice as many pixls and is therefore a lot more demanding on lenses. And f16 would be a very bad aperture to use on the D600 as diffraction would take over and robs you some sharpness.</p>

<p>There are good reasons the KR's comments are regularly trashed on various web forums.</p>

<p>The 16mm works on full frame (as long as you don't like to use filters.) This lens is much lighter than the suggested 16-28. Much much lighter actually. The first time I mounted the 16-28 on my D3s it toppled the whole tripod and required replacing the front element! Ouch. Also consider the rokinon / samyang 14mm 2.8. Medium weight, moderate to bad distortion but low price and good resolution. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 16mm works on full frame (as long as you don't like to use filters.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess you don't mind awful corners then.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 16mm works on full frame</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hate to ask for a definition, but what exactly do you mean by "works"?</p>

<p>If you are happy as long as there is no vignetting in the corners, perhaps it indeed "works" for you. But a lot of DX lenses provide very poor edge and corner sharpness and image quality on FX, although casually you don't see much vignetting when those DX zooms are at their max focal length. Typically the image looks smeared into the corners.</p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I have a D300 now, but most of my lenses are FX -- other than two (an 18 - 200 and the Tokina 11-16). </p>

<p>Unfortunately, those are the lenses I use most often. I enjoy travel photography and spend time on foot in the corners of third-world countries, so do not wish to carry my burdensome f/2.8 "professional" glass. Consequently, I am considering replacing the 18-200 with the 28-300. That would leave only my great fun lens, the 11-16, as a DX.</p>

<p>So thanks for some of the UWA suggestions: I'll have to ponder them.</p>

<p>BTW: My other great love is outdoor/nature photography, which I sometimes use to rationalize weeks spent backpacking in the mountains. Once again, that heavy fast glass is marvelous until you have to load it on top of food, clothing, fuel and shelter and carry it up and down the mountains.</p>

<p>So -- for instance -- I would love to have the 14-24 f/2.8. I have played with it and it makes the nerdy chambers of my heart sing with pleasure. But I would shy away from carrying such a big brick of glass. That happens too often — I so love the perfect tools (like my 70-200 f/2.8 VRII), but in the end they stay home when I'm off on an adventure.</p>

<p>Thanks again for the thoughtful responses -- once again I am impressed at the way discourse here avoids the calumny into which so many other sites' forum topics slide.</p>

<p>Looking at the link given earlier, it looks usable at 16mm. I was interested in this myself as I own one.</p>

<p>In any case a used Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 is pretty inexpensive and at least in my opinion an excellent full frame wide angle lens. I happily use it on my D800.</p>

Has anyone use 11-16/2.8 with a 1.4X TC on FX body?

<blockquote>

<p>I have a D300 now, but most of my lenses are FX -- other than two (an 18 - 200 and the Tokina 11-16).<br>

Unfortunately, those are the lenses I use most often. I enjoy travel photography and spend time on foot in the corners of third-world countries, so do not wish to carry my burdensome f/2.8 "professional" glass. Consequently, I am considering replacing the 18-200 with the 28-300. That would leave only my great fun lens, the 11-16, as a DX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If a lot of your photography is travel and you tend to use super zooms such as the 18-200mm DX, I wonder why you want to switch to FX?</p>

<p>I have the 28-300mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-S VR. That is my only lens that is slower than f4 in any part of its focal length. It is great for casual photography and sometimes I need to go from wide to tele immediately when I photograph children. However, like any other super zoom, optically it is heavily compromised and it is not that sharp near 300mm. On the 12MP D700, it is ok, but its flaws are quite obvious on the modern 24MP D600 and 36MP D800 as well as on the D7000.</p>

<p>For your type of travel photography, IMO you are much better off staying with DX. The advantages of FX will be well hidden when you hand hold a slow super zoom such as the 28-300 AF-S VR.</p>