Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Tokina 11-16mm Nikon?

HIMAN1998

HIMAN1998

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 24, 2013
338
0
Richmond, VA
I was wondering what people's thoughts on the Tokina 11-16 are... I'm possibly selling my Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 (Don't need a zoom that is that wide open) for $600 to a friend, and I was gonna buy a wide angle lens for my camera. I've heard a lot of good about the 11-16, and I'd prefer to have the 2.8 aperture for star stuff. My price limit will be $500 for the lens, as I can get an 11016 for less than that on Amazon. Any thoughts? Other recommendations?
 
I have the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for Nikon and I love it!

Very good build quality and great looking images. Ironically, I am thinking of off-loading it to get a 2.8 70-200, hahaha.

But yeah, I would recommend it. The version I have though does not have an internal focussing motor, so your camera will need to have a motor in it to automatically focus the lens.
 
rymack said:
I have the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for Nikon and I love it!

Very good build quality and great looking images. Ironically, I am thinking of off-loading it to get a 2.8 70-200, hahaha.

But yeah, I would recommend it. The version I have though does not have an internal focussing motor, so your camera will need to have a motor in it to automatically focus the lens.
Click to expand...

I have a D7000, which has the internal motor. How sharp is it at 2.8?
 
HIMAN1998 said:
I have a D7000, which has the internal motor. How sharp is it at 2.8?
Click to expand...

Hah! I have the D7000 as well. I find it to be quite sharp. I am by no means an "expert" photographer, so I might not have as critical an eye as others here, but I honestly have not seen any issues. Especially with a tripod and lens correction during post processing.

I have had some problems with sensor spots, but after having my D7000 professionally cleaned (at no charge, because they said it wasn't even really dirty!) I have narrowed it down to my Tokina as the culprit. Not a fault of the lens; I probably changed it in windy/dusty conditions and haven't cleaned it well enough since.
 
rymack said:
Hah! I have the D7000 as well. I find it to be quite sharp. I am by no means an "expert" photographer, so I might not have as critical an eye as others here, but I honestly have not seen any issues. Especially with a tripod and lens correction during post processing.

I have had some problems with sensor spots, but after having my D7000 professionally cleaned (at no charge, because they said it wasn't even really dirty!) I have narrowed it down to my Tokina as the culprit. Not a fault of the lens; I probably changed it in windy/dusty conditions and haven't cleaned it well enough since.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks. Looks likes this is a good choice once I sell the 70-200.
 
To second the comments, I love the Tokina 11-16 with my D7000 as well. It does a very good job at night and on landscape work in general. You should be quite happy with the results.
 
The D7000 & Tokina 11-16 is a great combination. I've also used the lens on a D800 underwater. ;) (It can cover the full frame sensor at 16mm.)

With that camera and lens I was starting to get some descent color out of the Milky Way. If I recall correctly coma wasn't a big issue in the corners when wide open.
 
Real nice lens on my Canon 7D. It's sharp, and of excellent quality. A little on the heavy side, and some people complain about flare. But since I don't shoot against bright light, that's not an issue with me. I highly recommend this lens, even for using on Nikon.

~just kidding, folks! :)
 
AlaskaMoose said:
Real nice lens on my Canon 7D. It's sharp, and of excellent quality. A little on the heavy side, and some people complain about flare. But since I don't shoot against bright light, that's not an issue with me. I highly recommend this lens, even for using on Nikon.

~just kidding, folks! :)
Click to expand...

I've seen the flare that people are talking about it, and I personally like it in some situations.
 
HIMAN1998 said:
I've seen the flare that people are talking about it, and I personally like it in some situations.
Click to expand...

True. I have also seen night snowy shots of trees and street lights, with some beautiful flare.

i also have a Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 for FF. I use this one on a Canon 5D II for photographing the Auroras, and could not be happier with it. It is a very heavy lens, but that's not a problem since the camera is on a tripod.
 
Great lens!

Owned one for years until I moved to FX body. My 11-16 was fantastic. I even thought of keeping mine, since I think that from 14-16mm the lens filled the entire FX frame, but with the corners not doing great till about f5.6 or so.
 
buy it you will love it, my amazon review
http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/product-reviews/B007ORXEIW/ref=cm_cr_pr_top_recent?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

This UWA lens is a MUST for serious astrophotographers that use crop cameras.
It's tack sharp, infinity focus is just that, no guessing, wide aperture.
You will love the images it captures.
I use it with my Canon 70D, a perfect combo.

Nothing bad to say, all good things to say.
I've attached a sample of what it can do.
Click to expand...

image from it, link is 2048 pix size version
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-8LFIEU2a4eY/U-Q3eYYiJ6I/AAAAAAAASa8/HCibQMycwTY/s2048/Aug-7-2014%2520Star%2520Trails.jpg
Aug-7-2014%2520Star%2520Trails.jpg
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
HIMAN1998 said:
I've seen the flare that people are talking about it, and I personally like it in some situations.
Click to expand...
It also has a good lens hood included that will eliminate some of the lens flare. There is also the hand above the lens trick!

I've been using it for about three years now. It was $700 back then and I considered that good value for such a lens. It's an even more awesome deal now for under $500.

I use it with my D7000 to shoot mostly interiors. There is a lot of distortion, but nothing that Photoshop cannot correct.
 
MacInTO said:
It also has a good lens hood included that will eliminate some of the lens flare. There is also the hand above the lens trick!

I've been using it for about three years now. It was $700 back then and I considered that good value for such a lens. It's an even more awesome deal now for under $500.

I use it with my D7000 to shoot mostly interiors. There is a lot of distortion, but nothing that Photoshop cannot correct.
Click to expand...

Will Phooshop Camer RAW automatically detect what lens it is when doing Lens Profile corrections?
 
HIMAN1998 said:
Will Phooshop Camer RAW automatically detect what lens it is when doing Lens Profile corrections?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure one setting will do it for any lens. Regardless, I don't use Camera Raw.

I find the lens correction that I apply is between +2 and +6 depending upon the location to the edge of the lens and the situation that I'm shooting.

I shoot lots of square objects, like buildings and walls so it depends on several factors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back