Tokina announces 16-28mm F2.8. FF

[kevin_b.2]

<p><a href="http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070501tokina16_28mmnikoncanon.asp">http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070501tokina16_28mmnikoncanon.asp</a></p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Fixed hood and no filters? Weird... It could be an interesting alternative to Canon 16-35 on FF. I guess we better wait and see the street prices to get a better idea.</p>

<p>I have to admit I am looking forward to this, since I keep dreaming about a 5D Mk III as a good excuse to go FF. My 24-105 would be ready for that, but my Tokina 11-16 and 16-50 would not, and Canon 16-35 is freaking expensive... Anyway, I already burned all my camera budget for this year, so I am more than willing to wait and see :-)</p>

<p>Massimo</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Boy what an oddball zoom ratio. That's either an idea who's time has not yet come or who's time has gone and went. What are they thinking over there at Tokina? I know it's full frame...but still...didn't there used to be a whole cluster of full-frame 19-35mm lenses back in the late 1990=early 2000 years?</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>They should have at least made it a 2X ratio (16-32). I used to own a Nikon 28-50 3.5 AI and always felt it should have been a little wider or longer.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>As I said above...save yourself a bundle...certainly a lot less than $1400.</p>

<p>http://photography.shop.ebay.com/Lenses-Filters-/78997/i.html?_nkw=19-35mm&_catref=1&_fln=1&_trksid=p3286.c0.m282</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>The zoom ratio makes perfect sense for me, as long as it helps keeping the price low. Many FF owners have either a 24-70 or a 24-105, so there is no need to overlap as much as the 16-35 and 17-40 do.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Well, the price ain't low. The press release says $1400.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Fixed hood and no filters is because of a bulging front element. Given the bulging element, limited zoom ratio, and high price, this lens should be really really sharp.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, the price ain't low. The press release says $1400.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wayne, don't take the press releases seriously. Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron always have silly high prices in their press releases. But the shelf price is about half that.I expect the new lens to go for around $700. Definitely bellow $800.<br /> Look at the Tokina 11-16mm. The press release said $1046<br /><br />http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020103tokina1116mmalpha.asp<br /><br />But B&H has them for $599<br /><br />http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=tokina+11-16mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes<br /><br />Or the Tokina 35mm macro. The press release says $600<br /><br />http://www.dpreview.com/news/0711/07111602tokina35macro.asp<br /><br />But in the store, it's $299<br /><br />http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=tokina+35mm+macro&N=0&InitialSearch=yes</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fixed hood and no filters is because of a bulging front element. Given the bulging element, limited zoom ratio, and high price, this lens should be really really sharp.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My thoughts, exactly. Limiting the zoom ratio usually is great for optical quality.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Canon 16-35 isn't cheap either :-)<br>

Press release report the list price, street price will be much lower. Canon 16-35 is $2000 but $1400 on Amazon as we speak. Nikon 17-35 is even more than that. I expect this is going to compete with Canon 16-35 the same way Tokina 11-16 competes with Canon 10-22, less range, less money, no compromises on quality.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I have an EF 17-40 4L I mainly use for landscape on my 5DII. And I rarely use it for that purpose without a polarizer. I can't imagine buying a wide zoom without filter threads...</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Wayne the 19-35s are very old designs I have the Vivitar 19-35 Series 1 in an FD mount (probably one of the better versions of these lenses. Compared to my 16-35 F2.8 II the Vivitar is very poor. This is not a surprise given the price difference - as in all things you get what you pay for!</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Puppy has nailed it. It's not optimal for landscapes since it doesn't take a polarizer. So what, then, is its advantage over the very affordably priced EF 17-40/4 L? One stop more speed. But for landscapes, you typically stop down beyond f/4 anyway. Perhaps it has killer optics, and delivers outstanding IQ, and thus will be a great ultrawide for applications other than landscape photography. Most of us, though, won't have much use for it.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Not just polarizers what about ND grads - at least where I live shooting wide with velvia or digital means an ND grad is usually essential</p>

[anov]

<p>The zoom (in) ring rotates clockwise ala Nikon, this might be a non issue or will drive people who are used to Canon UI nuts.</p>

[bjscharp]

This looks to me to be a competitor to Nikon's 14-24mm (talking about small zoom ranges anyone? That lens seems pretty popular with the same 1.7x zoom rating), and not to any of Canon's wide offerings.

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">If price will get lower it will probably be an attractive proposition.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

 

<p></p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

[zafar1]

<p>It is a mistake to think that landcape is the primary application of this lens. This lens has more applications in-door and event shoots then landscapes (although tokina won't stop anyone if they shoot lansdcapes).</p>

<p>In my opinion, distortion, CA, and general corner performance will determine the fate of this lens. If tokina has nailed these things, I am in line.</p>

<p> </p>