Lens Discussions: Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 & Tamron 60mm f/2

[MattSepeta]

Does anyone here have any experience using the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or the Tamron 60mm f/2 1:1 macro?

I am considering both lenses to round out my range, currently consisting of a 17-55mm f/2.8 paired with a 70-200mm f/4L.

My needs include an ultrawide for landscape, but I would like it to be fast for live music photography. I am thinking of going with the Tokina over the Canon 10-22mm because of its constant, fast aperture. I am willing to give up 1mm for a fast, constant aperture.

I also want a macro lens, but am considering the Tamron 60mm over the canon 100mm f/2.8 macro for the following reasons:
-60mm would make it more suitable for portraits than the 100mm
-f/2 is a full stop faster than f/2.8, again, for concert photography

My mind is pretty much made up (If you cant tell ), but I figured I would ask for some feedback from you guys. any bad/good experiences with either one? Any quality control issues I should be aware of for those lenses?

Any other recommendations? I am trying to pick up both new lenses for around $1000 combined.

Thanks guys.

 

[jampat]

Does anyone here have any experience using the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or the Tamron 60mm f/2 1:1 macro?

I am considering both lenses to round out my range, currently consisting of a 17-55mm f/2.8 paired with a 70-200mm f/4L.

My needs include an ultrawide for landscape, but I would like it to be fast for live music photography. I am thinking of going with the Tokina over the Canon 10-22mm because of its constant, fast aperture. I am willing to give up 1mm for a fast, constant aperture.

I also want a macro lens, but am considering the Tamron 60mm over the canon 100mm f/2.8 macro for the following reasons:
-60mm would make it more suitable for portraits than the 100mm
-f/2 is a full stop faster than f/2.8, again, for concert photography

My mind is pretty much made up (If you cant tell ), but I figured I would ask for some feedback from you guys. any bad/good experiences with either one? Any quality control issues I should be aware of for those lenses?

Any other recommendations? I am trying to pick up both new lenses for around $1000 combined.

Thanks guys.

I've heard great things about the 11-16 but I have yet to get my hands on one to try it. The damn things rarely come up in the used market here and go for more than I am willing to pay. Let me know how you like it.

 

[MattSepeta]

True

I have kept my eyes open for a used copy around here, but am yet to see one.

There are actually a few ads on CL LOOKING for the 11-16, so I think it may be my first brand new camera purchase, EVER.
d'oh!

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

Regarding the Tokina: while I am on the Nikon system (sounds like you are on Canon), I can say that there is absolutely NO used market for them on CL or in any retail store I can walk into to check out the lens in my hand, so I had to buy it new. I didn't have a problem finding a retailer once they restocked.

The lens is great - absolutely no complaints, but since it's my first UWA it's definitely got a steep learning curve (at least it has for me, and I still haven't mastered it).

I think Tokina has pretty good QC for a third-party lens.

 

[John.B]

Does anyone here have any experience using the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or the Tamron 60mm f/2 1:1 macro?

I am considering both lenses to round out my range, currently consisting of a 17-55mm f/2.8 paired with a 70-200mm f/4L.

My needs include an ultrawide for landscape, but I would like it to be fast for live music photography. I am thinking of going with the Tokina over the Canon 10-22mm because of its constant, fast aperture. I am willing to give up 1mm for a fast, constant aperture.

I also want a macro lens, but am considering the Tamron 60mm over the canon 100mm f/2.8 macro for the following reasons:
-60mm would make it more suitable for portraits than the 100mm
-f/2 is a full stop faster than f/2.8, again, for concert photography

My mind is pretty much made up (If you cant tell ), but I figured I would ask for some feedback from you guys. any bad/good experiences with either one? Any quality control issues I should be aware of for those lenses?

Any other recommendations? I am trying to pick up both new lenses for around $1000 combined.

I'd love to have that 60mm f/2 as a portrait lens on a crop sensor, but my previous experience with 1:1 macro lenses (first the EF-S 60mm, then the EF 100mm, soon to be the EF 100mm L IS) tells me that f/2 isn't actually going to be useful at 1:1 sizes since the DOF is already too small, even for APS-C where it naturally has more depth.

If it were me, for concert photography I'd get a prime in the f/1.4 range to go with that 17-55mm f/2.8.

 

[MattSepeta]

60mm f/2

Back from Nat Cam and they were back-ordered for "Don't know" how long with the tokina, so I just picked up the Tamron. Its awesome. I think the f/2 will cut it just fine for the concerts. I normally use my 17-55 over the 50mm anyways.

Putting this guy on craigslist as we speak

Taken with the new toy and a 430ex off the ceiling

 

[ronjon10]

I'm on Nikon, but have the Nikon equivalent of the set up you have their with the Tokina 11-16 2.8, Nikon 17-55 2.8 and an older nikon 80-200 2.8. The tokina is a great lens, no complaints with it at all. As has been mentioned, you won't find it used, but at 600 new, it's still a pretty good deal.

I'd be surprised if you get much use of it as a landscape lens. I've never had any luck using it as such. It's so wide that you get a ton of elements in the photo, it's just hard to make good composition. I find 24mm cropped (or 35mm full frame) is a better landscape lens. I use the 11-16 indoors a ton, architectural shots, and when I want extreme depth of field when shooting something up close.

I bet you could get some awesome concert shots with that thing. You could be right up on the stage and still manage to get the whole band in the shot with some interesting wide angle distorting effects.

 

[RobLS]

I use the tokina 11-16mm on my D300 and love it. Really no complaints. I had to wait about a year for it to get back from the original backorder. I bought mine off of bhphotovideo.com at the time. Wait was worth it

 

[OreoCookie]

I own Tokina's 12-24 mm and I love it. The built quality of the 11-16 mm is -- by all accounts -- the same so you're in for a treat: it definitely feels better than the 17-55 mm Canon or any other prosumer lens.

Regarding Tamron's 60 mm, that's a whole different beast. If you are interested in concert photography, does 60 mm really give you enough reach? This focal length seems a little short to me. If you need more reach, there are plenty of macro lenses in the 60~100 mm range, e. g. Tokina makes a very good 100 mm macro. Tamron makes a 90 mm macro as well.

If you don't really need a macro, have a look at Sigma's new 85 mm f/1.4 lens. The additional stop will be very useful for available light photography.

 

[Kronie]

I am willing to give up 1mm for a fast, constant aperture.

Remember the long end, your giving up way more than 1mm. I have owned both the 10-22 and the 11-16. While the Tokina is slightly sharper wide open and faster, the Canon offers way more range. Personally I found the greater range to be more valuable than the 2.8.

I also want a macro lens, but am considering the Tamron 60mm over the canon 100mm f/2.8 macro for the following reasons:
-60mm would make it more suitable for portraits than the 100mm
-f/2 is a full stop faster than f/2.8, again, for concert photography

Really, on a crop camera, 100mm if better suited for portraits than 60mm IMHO. I would also think that for concerts you will need more reach than 60mm unless your in the front row or on stage and the difference between 2.0 and 2.8 wont matter THAT much in those conditions as you will have the ISO maxed out anyway.

 

[VirtualRain]

Personally I found the greater range to be more valuable than the 2.8.

Agreed... I really don't get the need for f2.8 at these kinds of focal lengths. The intent of an ultra wide angle is to get a lot into the shot... with f2.8 you are pretty much assured that a lot of that will be out of focus, thereby defeating the purpose.

 

[ArtandStructure]

I'd be surprised if you get much use of it as a landscape lens. I've never had any luck using it as such. It's so wide that you get a ton of elements in the photo, it's just hard to make good composition. I find 24mm cropped (or 35mm full frame) is a better landscape lens.

Some of my landscape photos shot with the 11-16mm Tokina on a Nikon body:

http://artandstructure.com/photography/landscape/0008.php

http://artandstructure.com/photography/landscape/0653.php

http://artandstructure.com/photography/landscape/9984.php

http://artandstructure.com/photography/landscape/0771.php

http://artandstructure.com/photography/landscape/0963.php

http://artandstructure.com/photography/landscape/1440.php

http://artandstructure.com/photography/landscape/1563.php

http://artandstructure.com/photography/landscape/1737.php


All the best,

 

[VirtualRain]

Here's some photos taken using an ultra-wide angle as well...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/875102/

 

[MattSepeta]

Thoughts...

Thanks for the additional feedback guys.
ArtandStructure: I like your shots. Do you get many sales?
VirtualRain: I had a friends 10-22 for about half a year, and I loved it. However, I really did want a constant wide open aperture. I found I loved the perspective it offered for shows, that is why I am leaning towards the tokina.

 

[ArtandStructure]

ArtandStructure: I like your shots. Do you get many sales?

I do all right...enough to pay for my gear and my inventory. I am still building my gear and inventory, the latter being the more difficult part of the equation I think. For instance, trade/photo shows can be good for sales, but it requires a lot of inventory, a good show and a fairly significant fee. I have not hit the show circuit yet.

Online, I haven't really initiated a payment system yet. I use the site mostly as a portfolio and have been undecided what route I want to go for online sales. The method is really secondary to the exposure though. It doesn't matter how good one's online payment system is if they don't have traffic to the site.

My sales have come primarily from my one to one interaction with people or through the gallery I am in. However, gallery sales eat most of my profit in commission...I am thinking about readjusting my pricing structure some.

I prefer "art photography" but I am sure most anyone with experience trying to make an income in photography will tell you the better money is in services...weddings and portraits most particularly...unless you've built a strong brand/presence/identity with your work.


All the best,

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Well, for landscapes and cityscapes you will seldom open the lens below f/11. Consider that before going ultra-wide. I often take landscapes shots with my Tokina 12-24mm f/4 closed past f/11 (sometimes around f/22).