Quick Tokina lens question

Sparky874

Sparky874

Well-known member
Hi there. I already have two Carl Zeiss CP.2 lenses, an 50mm and a 85mm for my F3. I also have a Tokina 11-16mm sitting around on my shelf. Are those of you who are using it with the MTF adaptor happy with the quality of the picture from the Tokina? From my research I have gathered it's best to use it at the 16mm end oppossed to the 11mm end, due to less distortion etc. If the reports were positive, this would do me to cover the WA range. Thanks in advance, Sparky.
 
I'm very happy with the Tokina. It can be a little fuzzy in the corners but considering the price it's an excellent lens. Except for the pack shot at the end, this whole commercial was done on the Tokina. http://vimeo.com/28447534
 
Since you already have the Tokina lense I'd definately keep it. It does have some barrel distortion, as to do all super WA lenses, but its not bad. I've had several Tokina lenses (still have one) and they are nearly as good as the better Nikon lenses. (Not all nikon lenses are great.)

If you wanted to cover a more useful range, don't want to deal with distortion, etc. I'd suggest the Nikon 17-35mm AF-S ED F2.8 zoom. At 17mm its nearly the same as the Tokina anyway and it covers a range that you really need to cover.

The Nikon 17-35mm AF-S ED F2.8 is one of the best, if not the best, lens that Nikon has ever made. Negligable to no barrel distortion, great flare control with the ED coatings. You have good DOF control, if you want it, and it goes wide enough for most indoors shots and landscapes.

Last week I was shooting a pilot for a series called "I Will Love" using that lens for indoors close ups from 2' away where I still wanted DOF control to draw attention to the hand. (Directed by Rick Robinson and starring Kristen Hansen). I used that lens in ~70% of the shots.

FingersContrastS.jpg
 
Last edited:
ditto on the Nikon and the Tokina. My Nikon 17-35 was so good that I sold a Zeiss ZF 21mm f2.8 because the Nikon was sharper, faster and had the same length of focus throw. ( though a touch more barrel distortion)
 
Duke M. said:
Since you already have the Tokina lense I'd definately keep it. It does have some barrel distortion, as to do all super WA lenses, but its not bad. I've had several Tokina lenses (still have one) and they are nearly as good as the better Nikon lenses. (Not all nikon lenses are great.)

If you wanted to cover a more useful range, don't want to deal with distortion, etc. I'd suggest the Nikon 17-35mm AF-S ED F2.8 zoom. At 17mm its nearly the same as the Tokina anyway and it covers a range that you really need to cover.

The Nikon 17-35mm AF-S ED F2.8 is one of the best, if not the best, lens that Nikon has ever made. Negligable to no barrel distortion, great flare control with the ED coatings. You have good DOF control, if you want it, and it goes wide enough for most indoors shots and landscapes.

Last week I was shooting a pilot for a series called "I Will Love" using that lens for indoors close ups from 2' away where I still wanted DOF control to draw attention to the hand. (Directed by Rick Robinson and starring Kristen Hansen). I used that lens in ~70% of the shots.

View attachment 42159
Click to expand...



I am selling my extra Nikon 17-35, see the ad in Market forum...
 
The good thing about using a full frame Nikon lens with a S35 sensor is you're using the sweet spot in the middle of the lens. There are less vignetting and soft corner issues in those cases. The Tokina 11-16 is designed for the APS-C sized sensor so its using the entire lens with less room for error.
 
I have the 11-16 in EOS mount and am very impressed with quality. But in slightly longer lengh, don't forget the Tokina 28-70/f2.8 which is based upon an Angenieux design. I found an excellent deal on eBay. The more recent SV version isn't any good, so only look for the ProATX or ProATX II models with the f/2.6/2.8 apertures and 77mm front.

Ned
 
One of the perfect trifectas mentioned (by Optitek and others I think) is less than $3k to cover nearly all situations.

Nikon AF-S F2.8 ED Zooms
17-35mm
28-70mm
80-200mm

Fast for zooms, low flare coatings and high quality. Tokinas are nearly as good, being a bit softer when wide open, but very comparable when closed a stop or two.
 
Tokinas are the best of the lower priced choices , but really I don't think they are in the same ball park. (except the 11-16 which is dynamite) I owned them and the Nikons just knock it out of the park. Great glass and an incredible bargain.
After all you get an F3 for low DOF. Most of the time I'm at 2.8 and they still deliver wide open. At 5.6 your getting close to shooting with a 2/3" camera so why bother.
 
Duke, in principle, you are correct that one can cover off the entire typical shooting range and more with three excellent Nikon 2.8 lenses but I think the lenses mentioned at full retail come to more than 3 grand. If you buy used then 3 grand would cover it. I know way cheaper than a fixed PL lens...
 
Yep, $3k used. New would be something closer to $5k.

Its an old conundrum as far as Tokinas go, if you only have $1.5k and you need to shoot now, do you get one good Nikon lens or three good Tokina lenses? The answer will be different for everyone.
 
Last edited:
So, this is right down my alley...
I have a mix of Tokinas and Nikons... I do have. 17-35, but prefer 17-55/2.8. Extra reach means a lot for what I shoot, and sometimes it's not safe or there is no time (on location) to swap lenses on F3...
My set is:
Tokina 11-16/2.8
Nikon 17-55/2.8
Nikon 17-35/2.8
Tokina 28-70/2.6
Tokina 50-135/2.8 (not yet with me...)
Nikon Micro 55/2.8
Nikon 50-300/4.5 (monster for special occasions...)
ProLock Nikon adapter (pending...)
 
The Tokina 80-200 F2.8 is pretty good too. I'm not saying the Tokina's are bad, just that the Nikons are better wide open. Since the zooms widest aperture is F2.8 I tend to use them wide open a lot to get the DOF control.

And since the middle of my prime set is
35mm F1.4
50mm F1.4
85mm F1.4

I'm seriously looking at upgrading my 24mm F2.0 to 24mm F1.4. HOWEVER, the 24mm F1.4 has no manual aperture ring, unlike any other AF-S lens I've seen. The Prolock can cure this, but I really prefer a manual aperture. Of the older Nikon lenses only the 28mm is F1.4. Gerrrrr. Too close to 35mm for my money.
 
Last edited:
Two quick questions: Do you like the 17-35 better than the 14-24 f/2.8 for video? Is there a crop factor on the F3 so that a 17-35 is really a 24-50ish? And a third -- have you compared this to the "kit lenses" (which I am currently using and like)?
 
A S35 sensor (like the F3) is a 1.5 crop factor compared to a full frame DSLR, however compared to a movie film camera it is a 1 to 1 ratio, or better. Therefore, you should ignore any crop factor if you are shooting movies.

People don't understand crop factors. The field of view changes, but you can look and see that. The DOF doesn't change. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens with the same circle of confusion no matter what the crop factor.
 
Understood but will the view of a 17-35 have a 50 view at the most zoom and compared to a PL 50 lens? If so this Nikon has a range of 24 to 50 as compared to prime PL lenses. This helps to understand how wide the zoom really will be. this seems like a great range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top