• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

TOKINA 11~16mm f/ 1:4mm

D3S_4321-460.jpg


Ok, I'm moving my post here from http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6153

and posting an image I did with the lens.

Warning: I "retouched" the image a lot!

but the lens is fantastic... colors are strange, probably because of profile or color space. Nothing to do with what I see in Photoshop...

B%27way5av.jpg
 
The lens in the photo is the new f:2.8 that I want but I didn't buy only because I can't wait until it is available. Mine is different in two ways and similar in two:

Almost same price and exactly same size and appearance (I have not seen the 2.8 since the stores don't even have a sample here in New York, but this is what I read).

After that, the two TOKINAS are different in the zoom range. Mine is 12~24 f4 and the other is 11~16 f2.8

The idea is that the designers wanted to maintain the quality --and size/price?-- so they cut the zooming range a bit. In exchange you get a fast speed.

I would have opted for the fast speed, but having the zoom go to 35mm equivalent is a good consolation price for the slow f4, so maybe I will sell it and buy the other one latter.

The two lenses are part of a Pro. DX line that was --at least for me-- under the radar and seams to be a consolidation of a wide stable of lenses that was set aside for a smaller but better quality fleet.

What I have observed about my lens is that it is well built, -- the hood fits a bit loose dough--, the focusing is screw driver type but works well with my D300, there is a clutch system for going MF-AF and when disengaged the focusing ring can't stop the AF (since it is disconnected and loose) A Polaroid filter can be used, as a matter of fact, I got a German one and used on the image above. This is important to say since some FX, or full frame equivalent lenses do not accept Polaroid filter, or no filter at all.

The barrel distortion is very acceptable for a lens this wide, I think that my Mamiya 35mm has much more barrel distortion and it is much less wide.

The only thing that I would work on is the hood, not that is not a working hood...

ps, the image above has a bit of stitching on the wright side, I will post other non retouched ones...
 

Gary Ayala

New member
This weekend I used the 11-16 (Canon version). Man that lens is so sharp it cut my fingers when I mounted it on the camera. It has quite a bit of distortion, the fixed 2.8 is very very nice. A bit more CA (typical Toke) and it is basically a prime at 11mm. The zoom doesn't do much (about - to 1/2 step forwards or backwards) I used it more to reduce or increase distortion. I think the 11-16 is sharper than the 12-24.

Gary
 
Gary, where did you get your lens from?

When you say distortion you don't mean barrel distortion but the normal wide view, no?
For me the absence of barrel distortion -- or at least not the mustache type -- is important for interior and architectural applications.

"I think the 11-16 is sharper than the 12-24." ... agree, but at least I get the consolation of going to 24, or 35mm equiv.



This weekend I used the 11-16 (Canon version). Man that lens is so sharp it cut my fingers when I mounted it on the camera. It has quite a bit of distortion, the fixed 2.8 is very very nice. A bit more CA (typical Toke) and it is basically a prime at 11mm. The zoom doesn't do much (about - to 1/2 step forwards or backwards) I used it more to reduce or increase distortion. I think the 11-16 is sharper than the 12-24.

Gary
 

Gary Ayala

New member
Gary, where did you get your lens from?

When you say distortion you don't mean barrel distortion but the normal wide view, no?
For me the absence of barrel distortion -- or at least not the mustache type -- is important for interior and architectural applications.

"I think the 11-16 is sharper than the 12-24." ... agree, but at least I get the consolation of going to 24, or 35mm equiv.

Yes, the normal uniform wide distortion stuff, not barrel. A friend of mine had it on back order ... he just received it a week or so ago. He is quite happy with the resolving power. He was looking for a very sharp ultra wide and dumped his Sigma 10-20 for the improved performance of the Tokina.

Gary
 

Don Ferguson Jr.

Well-known member
Yes, the normal uniform wide distortion stuff, not barrel. A friend of mine had it on back order ... he just received it a week or so ago. He is quite happy with the resolving power. He was looking for a very sharp ultra wide and dumped his Sigma 10-20 for the improved performance of the Tokina.

Gary

Gary how did you like it compared to the Canon 10-22 ?

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/1022v1116 tests between the Canon and Tokina
He likes the Tokina .
Don
 
Top