tokina 11-16

[Rotary8]

if you're into super wide lenses this might be the one for you. A nice write-up from ken rockwell (he's VERY partial to nikon and canon lenses) so if he thinks this lens is awesome that's saying a lot.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

 

[AlaskaMoose]

if you're into super wide lenses this might be the one for you. A nice write-up from ken rockwell (he's VERY partial to nikon and canon lenses) so if he thinks this lens is awesome that's saying a lot.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

If that lens is at least like the Tokina 12-24mm, then it's a great lens. I am real happy with mine, which I use for landscapes.

 

[Westside guy]

I've been very happy with the few Tokina lenses I've owned over the years (okay, "few" means "two" - and one of those was back in the early 90s).

I am not a big Ken Rockwell fan, though, so his recommendation wouldn't really sway me either way. But I'll be interested to see what others say as they get hold of this lens.

A wide-angle f/2.8 would be fairly specialized. My wide-angle Tokina 12-24 is mainly used for landscape shots; so while it's f/4 I don't really need anything wider than f/8 or f/11.

 

[Rotary8]

just realized this isn't sold here yet doh. But for 599, i will get one when it comes out. And expect supply to run out quick.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

just realized this isn't sold here yet doh. But for 599, i will get one when it comes out. And expect supply to run out quick.

You can bet on that. I would think that it would cost under $700.00 US, since the demand for it is quite high.

 

[Abstract]

if you're into super wide lenses this might be the one for you. A nice write-up from ken rockwell (he's VERY partial to nikon and canon lenses) so if he thinks this lens is awesome that's saying a lot.

Not really. He doesn't have very tough standards when it comes to testing lenses. He has written reviews for lenses he hadn't even used.

Not a big fan of his either, although some of his articles are decent.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Not really. He doesn't have very tough standards when it comes to testing lenses. He has written reviews for lenses he hadn't even used.

Not a big fan of his either, although some of his articles are decent.

I second that. While I enjoy most of his articles I certainly don't put all my faith in his reviews.

 

[Westside guy]

Not really. He doesn't have very tough standards when it comes to testing lenses. He has written reviews for lenses he hadn't even used.

Einstein was famous for his "thought experiments" - maybe Rockwell considers these "thought reviews".

 

[Adrien Baker]

Not really. He doesn't have very tough standards when it comes to testing lenses. He has written reviews for lenses he hadn't even used.

Not a big fan of his either, although some of his articles are decent.

He's very up front when he comments about lenses that he hasn't actually used. When he does do this, I wouldn't say he "reviews" them, he just makes basic statements. His actual 'reviews' are quite a bit in-depth.

He writes mostly to a target audience, as his writings and opinions aren't for everyone.

Obviously, he makes a living from his website and that says he's doing something right.

Adrien

 

[OreoCookie]

There is a review up on photozone, it has received a rave review. Even if you take it with a grain of salt, it's still clear, it's a very good lens.

 

[Paul Turpin]

I am excited about this lens, and have ordered one.
I also own the Tokina 12-24, and I like it. But - I find myself wanting something both wider and faster - so this should be it!

For the record - Rockwell did use the one he reviewed, someone brought him one from Japan where you can already get them.