Tokina 11-20, 11-16 or something else?

<p>I'm after a super-wide for my D7200. The Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 looks attractive, but I'm not too bothered about the 20mm coverage. So maybe the older 11-16mm would do just as well? I'm likely to get a 17-50mm f/2.8 too at some future date.</p>

<p>Has anyone experience with either or both of these Tokina lenses? Or should I consider something else? At the moment I'm just going on published reviews.<br>

I like the build-quality of Tokina lenses, but so far haven't been too impressed with the optical quality of any of them. The push-ring AF/M switching I find irritating as well, but I'm willing to put up with it if the IQ is good.</p>

<p>I've pretty much ruled out the Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5~4.5 because of its variable aperture and price. I'd rather have a constant aperture zoom and keep the cost below £500 UK ($750 US).</p>

<p>Considering the focal lenghts, the variable aperture of the 10-24 has never bothered me. I do like its IQ and the 10mm. Why not have a closer look at it first hand before you rule it out?</p>

<p>There is also the 12-24/4 Nikkor. Either Nikkor should fit in your budget if you find a used one.</p>

<p>Both of those Nikon lenses are over the budget I've allocated when bought from reputable dealers Andreas. I'm not interested in buying used - too much junk out there. I could stretch if they were competitive on spec with 3rd party options, or had superior IQ, but I'm not seeing sparkling reviews of either Nikkor. And losing 1mm off the short end? Only a theoretical 5 degrees difference in HAOV I know..... but.</p>

<p>I'd get the 11-20. I had the 11-16 and loved it but always wished it would go longer by just a teeny bit.</p>

Rodeo Joe, you have an FX body. I wonder why you are getting a DX super wide. Since they still need to clear the

original flange to sensor distance designed foe 35mm film, these DX lenses are difficult to make and inherently have a big

disadvantage.

<p>I like my Tokina 11-16mm in Nikon mount (with no AF motor) very much. I've carried it alongside a 17-50 or a 17-55mm , so I haven't worried that it lacks longer focal lengths. That said, it is so specific in purpose that it feels like I'm putting on a prime lens. I use it for some near/far landscape compositions and when shooting in very tight places.<br>

I don't use a protective filter on the front of this lens--the filter would get almost no shade from the shallow hood and invite flare--and the large, curved front element is likely to get scratched. The scratch I put on mine doesn't seem to affect image quality.</p>

<p>I love my Sigma 8-16mm.<br>

It gets used almost all the time at 8mm:<br>

<img src="http://moving-target-photos.com/2011Oshkosh/IMG_6694_650h.jpg" alt="" width="433" height="650" /></p>

Very happy with Tokina 12-24 on my D7000.

<p>I have the first version of the 11-16 and have always been quite happy with it - though I have not used it very much on a 24MP DX body (but on a D300). Like all ultra-wide DX zooms that I know of, and particularly for all Tokina versions, lateral CA is quite high. From what I've read, the 2nd version of the 11-16 has improved IQ over the first; and the 11-20 sits somewhere in between. </p>

<p>Personally, I would probably go for the 11-20; the 11-16 feels more like a prime lens with a little wiggle room. If f/2.8 is not needed, then my first choice would be the Sigma 8-16.</p>

<p>i have the 12-24/4 tokina and i have to say it's really good for landscape. optimized more for contrast than sharpness, maybe, but definitely has character, and sharp enough. i would just hop on the 11-20 if i were RJ as the 2.8 + extended range makes it more versatile than most UWAs.</p>

<p>Thanks people. I'm now pretty much sold on the Tokina 11-20. But keep opinions coming!</p>

<p>I can't see me using an 8mm focal length very much, and I've been disappointed and let down by Sigma lenses too many times in the past. I still wouldn't rule a Sigma wide zoom out altogether if there were compelling reasons to get one. Like less barrel distortion at the short end or <em>really</em> superior IQ.</p>

<p>Shun, yes I have two full-frame bodies, a D800 and D700, but I've also recently ventured into DX with a D7200. It's actually breathed new life into some of my tele lenses by effectively multiplying their focal length and cropping out the soft and fringed edges/corners. The kit 18-140mm lens is also pretty amazing except for the dim f/5.6 aperture at the long end, and the fact that it's really more like a 100mm lens when used at a few feet subject distance. Still, it'll do as my walk-around lens for the time being. Just looking to go a bit wider and faster now.</p>

<p>I know that FF is the obvious choice of body for super-wide use, but I'm trying to shed some size and weight from my kit as I get into old age. I even have a nagging thought of going for (shudder) 4/3rds.</p>

<p>Hey Rodeo Joe. I'm chasing the weight issue also for the same reason, and don't want to drop a real expensive camera if I'm hanging off a cliff. I went to the super light D5500, which is quite usable and under a pound in weight. I got a Tokina 12-28 f4 since I do more landscapes. I haven't quite decided if the autofocus is as accurate as I want, but it is reasonable sharp when on focus and also light weight. The 28 mm long end overlaps my 24-85 f3.5-4.5 VR nikkor so gives me 18-130 equivalent and very light weight.</p>

<p>I used the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on a D7100 and loved it. Very sharp, low distortion.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, obviously another DSLR body will cost a fair amount of money, but if you want light weight, a better approach is to get something like a D750, which isn't a whole lot bigger than a D7200 and add a wide FX lens, e.g. the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S.</p>

<p>DX indeed breathes new life to teles, but it has the apposite effect on wide angles as long as there is the need to keep the original flange-to-sensor distance for 35mm film to maintain backward compatibility. At least APS-C mirrorless cameras don't need to carry such baggage.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-databases-for-nikon/thoms-recommended-lenses.html">Thom Hogan</a> recommends these Tokina lenses quite highly and claims to use the Tokina 11-16 in his DX kit.</p>

<p>Kent and Dieter, thanks for the 1st hand recommendation. I'm still kind of torn between the 11-16 and the 11-20, but I guess a newer design with a longer range can't hurt.</p>

<p>Shun, too late with the recommendation to go with a D750 I'm afraid. I pulled the trigger on a D7200 back in June, but have only had the use of it for less than 4 months since then due to repair and exchange wrangles over a faulty shutter. Obviously my full-frame tele lenses are fully useable on it, so I'm just missing something wider than the 18-140 zoom that came with it.</p>

<p>All I can say is that my Tokina 12-24 f/4 never disappointed me; yes, it wasn't pin-sharp wide open, but from f/5 on, it did the job absolutely fine, for a lot less money than the Nikkors. Build quality for the Tokina lenses I had was just perfectly fine, especially considering price.<br>

As for the 11-16 vs. 11-20, I'd certainly get the 11-20, budget allowing. From using the 12-24, I noticed just how often the 18-24 part comes into use and keeps you from changing lenses more often. Not that changing a lens is a massive job, but a bit more "all-rounded"-ness is welcome, especially as it seems the 11-20 doesn't suffer in any other area (but price, being a newer item).</p>

<p>Hi Folks,<br>

I have three of these lenses. I have the 12-24 F/4 for DX, The 17-35F/4 for FX and the 16-28 F/2.8 for FX as well.<br>

I have been using Tokina lenses for about 15 years and I love them. I have owned atleast a dozen or so between Pentax and Nikon. The only gripe I have with them is this. I have yet to buy one of these that I did not need to fine tune the focus. Well, that is not true. The 17-35F/4 is perfect on my D750 and 800E. All the others have needed tuning. Example. The 12-24 F/4 on my D7200 needs a -5. The 16-28 NEEDS A -10 on FX. I adjust them all max focal length and wide open. Once fine tuned, they are brutally sharp across the zoom range. The biggest issue continues to be the lens flair. You have to use the hoods and in my case, pay extra attention to the sun. My understanding is that the biggest upgrade to the 11-16 F/2.8 IS NOT the additional 4mm in length, but that the flair issue was addressed and hugely reduced. That has me pondering selling my 12-24 F/4 and getting that bad boy. The image quality is awesome though. Stunning colors, great contrast. They just need AF fine tuning. </p>

<p>The first 17 pictures of this set are all with the D7100 and Tokina 12-24F/4. <br /> http://jgredline.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-walk-through-olvera-st.html</p>

<p>All of these are with the D7100 and Tokina 12-24F/4<br /> http://jgredline.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-walk-through-china-town-dec-12th-2015.html<br>

Far from perfect. </p>

<p>I recently purchased and am learning to use a Tokina 11-16/2.8. I like the coverage, but it feels a little soft at wide apertures. It might just be me, or unreasonable expectations. At f/5.6 or smaller it is tack sharp. Since I only paid $300 US for it, I can't complain. If I discover I like the ultra-wide, I may buy something better/more expensive some day. For now this meets my needs very well. Oh, and make sure to keep your front element and any filters absolutely clean. Any dust or drops of any kind will show up in your images.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is another shot taken with the Tokina 11-16, hand-held.</p><div></div>

<p>I have a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.</p>

<p>The 11-16 f2.8 is a little smaller and it's a bargain right now. Good build quality too, at least the version 1 without AF motor that I have. It also uses standard 77mm filters (11-20 has 82mm).</p>

<p>The 11-16 was good partly because of it's narrow zoom range. Is the 11-20 f2.8 really as good? I haven't compared so I don't know.</p>

<p>But if you don't need the 16-20mm range (and most people don't as it is covered by the midrange zooms) then the 11-16 is a bargain.</p>

<p>I also have the Nikkor 12-24 f4. I put the image quality of the Tokina slightly above the Nikon lens at larger apertures. The AF on the Nikon is very good though. But f4 is not f2.8. And the Tokina is perfectly usable at f2.8 and that is the reason I got it in the first place. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks to all. I'm hoping that the 11-20 will be as good as the 11-16, so I'm decided that's what I'll go for - when and if stocks arrive at my preferred supplier!</p>

<p>I'm now torn between going for a local UK supplier or with B&H's international shipping (slightly cheaper, plus B&H appear to have stock). The one worry I have about ordering from B&H is that the lens might get held up in customs and be charged UK tax and "landing duty". I've had this happen before with a pre-production trade sample sent to me <em>free of charge.</em> Yet UK customs tried to charge me duty on the declared insurance value, as well as an additional duty on the shipping costs! The item was only released free of duty when I pointed out that it had no serial number or model label because it was a pre-production sample sent for evaluation.</p>

<p>I always get charged VAT when buying from B&H. Duty percentages depends on what it is, for instance lens, camera etc.</p>

<p>You could also look into buying from another EU country, as there is free trade between the EU countries.<br>

But amazon.co.uk has 3 left in stock. £458 with free shipping.</p>

<p> </p>

I just read on Nikon rumors that Tokina has a 14-20 F/2.0 coming. I could not post the link sorry.