Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX Digital Zoom

[raffal]

<p>I heard nothing but good thing about this lens..even that it is equal if not better to Nikon's wide angle same class .. any comments from users ? If that's true why spend extra $$$$ for the Nikon lens..</p>

[evannorth]

<p>the tokina 11-16 is a great sharp ultra wide zoom for dx only. i find that distortion and CA arent too bad, but if shooting subjects with straight lines in strong light, (such as buildings). you will often get a white fringe along high contrast edges.<br>

that said it is rather good with great build quality and nice close focus to get creative with.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I've been advocating third party lenses for a while now. I have the Tokina 11-16m f/2.8 and previously their 12-24 f/4, also excellent. I originally had a Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4 Macro, but once I started doing concerts and events, I traded it in for a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC, again an excellent lens that is at the least 95% the quality of the Nikon for a lot lower price.</p>

<p>I also went from a Nikon 70-300 VR to a sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 OS and Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OS, but very recently traded that in for the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS and 1.4 teleconverter when the price of the lens came down to $2500. I also have the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro. Again, all these lenses are from 95% to equal to the Nikon quality for a lower price, and in actuality Nikon does not even make an equivalent version of some. The only Nikon lens I own is the 18-135mm f/3.5-4.5 which I use for snap shots when visiting family (and it's sharp and clean as can be). I use Dx cameras, started with two D70s bodies, now two D300s and have no intention to go Fx.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>If that's true why spend extra $$$$ for the Nikon lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a good question, but be sure to compare apples to apples. The Nikon product in the same price range is the 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5. Choosing between that lens and the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is choosing between 2 different sets of compromises: range, or aperture.</p>

<p>No doubt the Tokina is an great lens (as is their 12-24 f/4, which I've had), and the Tokina is the only f/2.8 wide angle zoom you'll find for DX. It's also a bit a prime on steroids - 11mm is very wide, 16mm is still quite very wide too. Its zoomrange is really limited, as it only really does ultra-wide and nothing else. But, if you frequently need f/2.8, this is your only choice basically.<br>

The Nikon 10-24 is a bit overpriced in my view, but it comes out of all tests as a really good performer. It goes wider than the Tokina, but most of all, it ends at 24mm - which is moderately wide angle. This extra bit of range does make it into a much more versatile lens. If having the faster f/2.8 aperture is no requirement (landscape, daylight work), then the Nikon does make a lot of sense. But if you do not need the ultrawide 10mm, then the Tokina 12-24 makes an equal amount of sense, for a lot less money.</p>

<p>So, what do you want to use this lens for, and how wide do you want to go? (considering there is also th Sigma 8-16, which gets good grades, happy users, slow aperture but insanely wide)</p>

[Two23]

<p>I've been using this lens for several years now, first on a D300 and now a D7100. It's an excellent lens. I prefer it over anything Nikon makes in that range.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I love my 11-16 (I am the guy who wrote the review of that lens on photo.net even, but I bought it with my own money).</p>

<p>I love that I can shoot at f4 and be one stop down and f5.6 and be 2, instead of being wide open as on other lenses. I nearly never shoot it wide open, but it's nice to be able to. You can leave this lens at f5.6 and f8 all the time and get perfect sharpness. (I almost always shoot it at f5.6, it's plenty of dof for most everything).</p>

<p>I don't care too much about it's lack of range, as I bought it to shoot really really wide. But for many people, having it stop at 16mm is a deal breaker. I think of it as an 11mm prime that also has 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16mm primes built-in.</p>

<p>It's a fantastic lens, as sharp as any of the Nikon lenses I have used. Only you know if you'd rather have speed than range.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>I also have one, and the old 18-70 Nikon Kit lens, so where the Tokina leaves off<br>

at 16mm the kit lens takes over and goes all the way to the effective length of 105mm.<br>

And since we now have the 1.3x crop on top of the DX native 1.5x crop we get a 2x doubling<br>

effect of the 70mm long end of the lens when change the menu option to crop mode on the <br>

D7100. We wind up with a lens that goes from 27mm uncropped to 140mm with the crop.<br>

If I need something faster I just take along my trusty old 20-35mm f2.8 Nikkor D. I frankly<br>

like the fact the the Tokina can be used on my old F3hp and F100 film bodies at 16mm since<br>

it covers FF film frame at 15mm and 16mm. What a nice construction on that lens, its<br>

almost as nice as the all metal 20-35mm Nikkor, and that is just one beautiful lens to use,<br>

mine is still in mint condition. When not in use it sits in a Billingham bag, I bought 3 of them<br>

used in the UK.<br>

Tokina makes lenses on the wide angle side that are second to none.</p>

[miguel_martinez4]

<p>Why get the Nikon 10-24? Well, I did buy it, so I should know. Back when I bought it (Nov 2010), my camera was a D60, with no AF motor, and back then the Tokina with built-in AF motor hadn't even been announced. That's only part of the story. Had I owned my current D7000 back then, I may have still purchased the Nikon, and it wouldn't have been a bad decision.</p>

<p>While the tokina is 1 stop faster and most certainly sharper according to all reviews between 11 and 16 mm, the Nikon has a very nice range. It has allowed me to go hiking with it, and still know I can take some "normal" pictures. For travelling, 10-24 and 70-300, plus 35mm f/1.8 for low night is a pretty good combination, especially when the 70-300 is on my wife's camera. It's more than good enough for what I print (A3 biggest, and not that often). 10mm may be crappy at apertures larger than f/8, but it still is a nice recourse when 12mm isn't enough to distort the perspective.</p>

<p>However, I do agree that the pricing on this Nikon (as in some others) hints at a level of quality that isn't really there. I wonder what would happen if the F-mount were actually documented and 3rd parties wouldn't need reverse engineering to build their lenses.</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>I bought the Nikon 10-24: I valued the extra range for my use, I don't much care about the maximum aperture for a superwide, and I found a used in excellent shape so the price differential wasn't really there. Not saying that's the best choice for others, but worked for me.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>I find indoor and night street scenes could use the extra couple of stops, after all many strobes<br>

can't light wide angles well.</p>

<p>Also, I figure that if the stop can be set wider it means that my ISO setting will be lower<br>

and therefore the picture will have less sensor noise. 16mm is an EFL of 24mm on a cropped<br>

sensor camera. That is no longer an Ultra Wide length but still wide enough for indoor room shots and as a street lens.</p>

 

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>Its a great lens and the only non Nikon lens I have. Its sharp, no collapsing inwards at 11 and great contrast. Its narrow zoom range is to maximise the image quality. I tried the Nikon 12-24. Not as good. The effective range is 16-24 and that's where you want to be for landscapes.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>I agree Francisco, its just right for that purpose and room interiors.</p>

[greg_alton]

<p>@T. Zenjitsuman: this may have come across but I completely agree with you. Between the Tokina and the Nikon variants mentioned, in some ways it's a simple choice: extra reach (to 24 mm) or a wider aperture. That's the main difference between these lenses.<br>

For me, the extra reach makes it a lens I can use a lot for regular use, since the long end gets to an almost-normal 35 mm (equivalent). For you, it's faster and that's what makes the difference. I don't need the speed for what I want the lens for.<br>

It's awesome that there is this choice on the market, and unlike some other lens comparisons, the main different features/advantages are clear.</p>

[peter_cohen]

<p>Great lens. I use mine for social events and it hardly ever comes off the camera. The ability to use manual focus in a dimly-lit room -- with our without flash -- and get great DoF is a huge asset. And when you want to get creative, it delivers in spades. That said, I find the difference between 11mm and 16mm almost indiscernible, so don't expect much of a "zoom."</p>

<p>When I was researching it, I believe it was @<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=39504">Kent Staubus</a> (posted above) who once wrote that it's more like 6 primes than an 11-16 zoom.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I use it with a D300s to shoot philharmonic concerts in small, dark venues where I can't get back far enough with my Tamron 17-50 VC. The Tokina has saved the day a few times in those situations.</p>