Tokina 11-16mm version I vs. version II

<p>Does anybody know what the difference is between the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for Canon versions 1 & 2. The only thing I can tell is the price. Version one is selling for $449 on B&H and version II is selling for $525.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The major version II changes are found in the Nikon mount version of this lens. Utilizing an internal silent focusing motor, the version II lens no longer requires a Nikon DSLR with an AF drive gear and motor to autofocus this lens. Both Nikon and Canon mount versions of the Tokina 11-16 II have improved multi-layer coatings to minimize light reflection "... for slightly improved optical performance." [Tokina] There were no other changes made to the Canon mount version of this lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tokina-11-16mm-f-2.8-AT-X-Pro-DX-II-Lens.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tokina-11-16mm-f-2.8-AT-X-Pro-DX-II-Lens.aspx</a></p>

<p>Hi Harry, I had version 1 and loved it. It was always one of my favourite lenses. As to the differences between versions 1 and 2- here is a quote from the Tokina website:</p>

<p>"<em>The New Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II is an update to the widely popular and award winning AT-X 116 PRO DX, 11-16 F/2.8 lens. </em><br /> <br /><em>The main update to this lens is in the Nikon mount, the AT-X 116 PRO DX-II has an internal silent focusing motor to allow the lens to AF on Nikon bodies that do not have an AF drive gear and motor. </em><br /> <br /><em>There have also been some adjustments made to the coating for slightly improved optical performance.</em>"</p>

<p>Source is <a href="http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/products/atxpro/atx116prodxii/">here</a>.</p>

<p>Laurie</p>

<p>I kind of like the way the old version looked, plus I have a Canon so I don't see any major reason to opt for the version 2.</p>

<p>I had the old version before I moved to a full frame camera. This was one of my favorite lenses. I am not sure what improvement the new coatings will give but I assume some. I never had any complaints of any sort about the image quality off the old lens. Sharpness, color, fast. This is a great lens.</p>

<p>Which ever you choose, I am sure you will have great image quality.</p>

<p>I have the version I in Sony Alpha mount and love it. Version II has been upgraded with a in camera USM type of motor to work with Nikon and Pextax cameras that cannot use the version I lens. My wife uses a Nikon D3200 and the D3200 will only autofocus with lenses that have SWM or USM type of motors, so she would require the Version II lens. If you should buy this lens be warned that it is incredibly sharp. It's the sharpest wide angle zoom I've ever owned and I love the 35mm range of 17-24/2.8! </p>

<p>Unless you have a need for the internal motor, I think you should spend that extra $100 on something else. I also own version 1, and it is one of my favorite lens along with the Tokina 100mm /2.8 macro.</p>

<p>On Canon the new coating on version II is supposed to improve flares handling, still I believe you may save some money and stick to version I. You will not regret anyway, Tokina 11-16 is a wonderful lens</p>

<p>Laurie, you didn't state what camera you use. Your camera body will determine which lens you need. If it can use version I I'd get the version I and take the money you saved and invest in a flash or a good circular polarizer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your camera body will determine which lens you need</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not on a Canon camera, we are on a Canon forum and the original poster explicitly mentioned the Canon version of the lens.</p>