Tokina 11-and 16 and 12-24 DX and DXii

[peter_murrell]

<p>Hi,<br>

I have a D300s and D7000 with 17-55 2.8, 35mm and 50mm but looking to venture into wide angle territory. I've read up a little on Tokina and it appears both lenses are very good possibly the 11-16 slightly edging the 12-24 on overall sharpness if I'm correct though I guess it comes down to personal opinion/uses etc.<br>

I'm looking to buy used and wondered is there much difference between updated the DX and DXii - the DX will work on both cameras but I understand the DXii has coatings to reduce flare - any experiences from anyone having used both?<br>

Thanks<br>

Peter</p>

 

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Hey Peter, I have not used the 12-24ii but I like my 12-24 I (no focus motor) very much. Version I is pretty good for dealing with flare, so improved coatings would probably make it all the better.</p>

<p>If you are looking for a wide angle, you might also check out the unreleased <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1084644-REG/tokina_at_x_11_20mm_f_2_8_pro.html">Tokina 11-20 f/2.8</a>. I am curious how expensive the 11-20 will be. I think I would be interested in swapping out my 12-24 for the 11-20. A lot of people just use WA stopped down for lots of DOF, but I think a fast wide angle opens up nice creative possibilities for shallow DOF when you get close to your subject. The 11-20 looks like a nice compromise between speed and range. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>There's also the newer 12-28/4 and soon there will be (already announced) a 11-20/2.8.<br>

I have the 11-16/2.8 (first version) and have briefly used the second version of the 12-24/4 - but never had a chance to compare them to the respective other versions. </p>

[kylebybee]

<p>I have the second version 11-16 f/2.8 and use with my D7000 and like it. Very sharp and controls flare pretty well wide open.</p><div></div>

[peter_murrell]

<p>Thanks all for responding. A local shop in London currently has a used 12-24 DX for sale. I will try out tomorrow.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I had the 11-16. LOVED it.<br /><br />I think the 12-24 or 12-28 are a much better choice for most people.<br /><br />That said, when I switched to Olympus µ43 recently, I'm pretty sure that I won't need anything wider than 28mm ff equivalent. I didn't use that lens for a full year, so I realized I wasn't going to miss the focal length, and so far I really haven't. YMMV, of course, and it's worth trying used for sure.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I've had the 12-24DX, the original version without the motor (which would be fine given both your cameras can drive it). In terms of value for money, I think it's the best you can get. From all the tests I've seen, optically, the 11-16 is the better lens, though. To me, though, the 11-16 always seemed a bit a prime-on-sterioids. It goes from very wide to still-quite-seriously wide. The 12-24, and even more so the 12-28, are probably a bit "easier" in walk-around use because of the added long end. In this sense, I agree with Peter that these lenses make a better choice.<br>

But at this point, I too would wait for the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8. Announced price is a slight bit above the 11-16, but it does fix its major shortcoming, and if it performs as well as its predecessor, it'll make a great choice.</p>

<p>If budget is a big concern, though, I'd look at the Tokina 12-24DX, or the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 probably. Both respectable performers, and priced decently.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the 12-24 is an awesome lens. ive had one since 2007. it has mojo, is excellent stopped down, and a very useful zoom range. if your other zoom is a 17-55, you will have to switch lenses frequently with the 11-16. that 16-24 range means you can give the lens more stick time. the 11-16 is more of a specialty lens.</p>

[tombest]

<p>Peter, can't comment on the comparison (not sure many will have had both the version I & II) but I have the version I on my D7000. It is a great performer, but I have had instances where flare becomes an issue... Not a deal breaker but I would try to keep direct sun from it for the best pictures. I have heard the version II is better in that regard. </p>

<p>It is an extremely useful and fun focal length making me glad I bought it instead of the 11-16. I find I am using it at its 24mm length more often than the 12. The difference between 11mm and 16mm is pretty small but if distortion and effect are what you are after, it would give you that in spades. But for me, the 12-24 is ideal. 12-28... even better. You're no stranger to lugging heavy glass around with your 17-55 so the 12-24 wouldn't be an issue, but I was surprised at its heft. It's a solid little lens. If I had to only have one lens on my camera and I wasn't going to encounter wildlife, it would be my little Tokina 12-24. It can be a VERY sharp lens, especially when stopped down a little.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p> </p>

[justthings]

<p>Another vote for the 12-24, I love mine but can't compare against the other offerings as I haven't used those. The lens is built like a tank and handles really well on my D80. I like the F/4 constant aperture though the idea of an f/2.8 in this range is very interesting to me as well. I use this at its widest setting a lot, but then I like wide perspectives<br>

<a title="From the Nickel Bridge by chris thompson, on Flickr" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/outwithmycamera13/15464313145"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3935/15464313145_167f409c43_z.jpg" alt="From the Nickel Bridge" width="504" height="640" /></a></p>