Thinking of swapping my Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for another wide angle lens...

T

theprestige

Active member
I've had my Tokina 11-16mm for awhile. It's great, but it's DX only. I do use the 16mm portion for my Sony A7S II, and it looks good, but I wonder if i could get a better wide angle lens. I tend to shoot quite wide when it comes to videography, and the Tokina 11-16mm has some distortions. I am thinking of swapping it for a cheap yet strong wide angle prime. Nikon only too since I only have nikon adapters. Anybody recommend a great wide angle prime with minimal to no distortions filmmaking? I really like symmetrical wide shots.
 
The three wide angles on my wish list are as follows:

Canon 11-24 f4
Canon 17mm Tilt and shift
Tokina 16-24 f2.8

Still waiting on Sigma to create an ultra wide full frame art lens
 
I adore the Tokina but I have only APS-C bodies. That's a valid reason to swap. As to the distortion, it shouldn't be significantly better or worse than other lenses of the same focal length, barring really terrible lenses.

If somebody shoots wide without distortion, he either kept his faces and straight lines near center, or un-warped it in post. I think this is a mathematical certainty of wide lenses, but I'm open to correction.
 
charliemcdanger said:
I adore the Tokina but I have only APS-C bodies. That's a valid reason to swap. As to the distortion, it shouldn't be significantly better or worse than other lenses of the same focal length, barring really terrible lenses.

If somebody shoots wide without distortion, he either kept his faces and straight lines near center, or un-warped it in post. I think this is a mathematical certainty of wide lenses, but I'm open to correction.
Click to expand...

I don't have experience with any other wide angle lenses, to be fair. But I am looking for that Kubrick symmetrical look. He shoots wide...like very wide, yet there is practically no distortion to his images whatsoever. I think that's the key to the cinematic wide look...shoot wide, but shoot wide primes so that you reduce distortion? Or am I being naive?
 
- What's your budget? (The new Batis 18mm may be exactly what you're looking for, but it's $1500)

- Do you need it to be fast? If not, the Sony 16-35 f/4 FE may be an option. It does have some distortion at 16mm but at 20mm it's distortion-free (link).

- Do you need to put filters in front of the lens? This will rule out quite a few candidates... (like the Tokina 16-24, IIRC)
 
theprestige said:
I don't have experience with any other wide angle lenses, to be fair. But I am looking for that Kubrick symmetrical look. He shoots wide...like very wide, yet there is practically no distortion to his images whatsoever. I think that's the key to the cinematic wide look...shoot wide, but shoot wide primes so that you reduce distortion? Or am I being naive?
Click to expand...

Well you are already wider than the majority of Kubrick's wide shots with your 11-16mm. And look again, plenty of distortion is present in the ultra wide stuff like in Clockwork Orange.

Also do realize that the Tokina 11-16mm you have now is rectilinear.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Nope, I don't do Tamron. Don't like the look, i'm afraid. The wide angle zoom range seems great, but I love the Nikon look more than any other brand.
Click to expand...
Do not discard it at sight. SP is like Sigma's ART, it's really in a different league just reading/watching reviews.
 
theprestige said:
Nope, I don't do Tamron. Don't like the look, i'm afraid. The wide angle zoom range seems great, but I love the Nikon look more than any other brand.
Click to expand...

So what is "the Nikon look" in your mind?

And are you talking about vintage, or modern Nikon lenses?
 
Last edited:
Samuel H said:
- What's your budget? (The new Batis 18mm may be exactly what you're looking for, but it's $1500)

- Do you need it to be fast? If not, the Sony 16-35 f/4 FE may be an option. It does have some distortion at 16mm but at 20mm it's distortion-free (link).

- Do you need to put filters in front of the lens? This will rule out quite a few candidates... (like the Tokina 16-24, IIRC)
Click to expand...

I so don't have that amount of money to spend on a lens. Even the Sony 16-35mm is out of my price range. I was hoping I could swap the Tokina for another wide angle, to be honest.

With the A7S II, I don't really require fast lenses anymore, so long as it's a constant aperture.

I don't use filters for wide angle work.
 
David W. Jones said:
Well you are already wider than the majority of Kubrick's wide shots with your 11-16mm. And look again, plenty of distortion is present in the ultra wide stuff like in Clockwork Orange.

Also do realize that the Tokina 11-16mm you have now is rectilinear.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that the Tokina 11-16mm is rectilinear. Yeah, I suppose Kubrick's work isn't completely distortion free. I thought I was shooting around the same wide focal length as him, or even more? I thought he shot 14mm??
 
David W. Jones said:
So what is "the Nikon look" in your mind?

And are you talking about vintage, or modern Nikon lenses?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the Nikon lenses I have, which are the 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S and 50mm 1.8 AF-D. They have a filmic quality to them and a lot of...'character'. I like their contrast and I think they resolve well on big screens. I haven't tried any of the vintage AIS that people bang on about but i'm sure they are good too.
 
Ah, well then you should have a look at the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 zoom. It's very sharp and will match your other Nikon lenses perfectly. But lenses this nice get pricy.
 
I, too, would chime in favorably on Tamron. IMO what you view as "artificial" or "filmic" etc. likely has more to do with lighting, sensor, profile, post...basically every element of shooting that's not the lens. The key thing you want from the lens is a true rendition of light onto the sensor--and in this regard Tamron tests excellently. Google "Tamron vs Nikon" and read to your heart's content.

If time and space allow me only one lens, it's the Tamron 28-75 2.8 every time.

p.s. I also love Rokinon primes, but if you sniff at Tamron, these won't be for you.
 
charliemcdanger said:
I, too, would chime in favorably on Tamron. IMO what you view as "artificial" or "filmic" etc. likely has more to do with lighting, sensor, profile, post...basically every element of shooting that's not the lens. The key thing you want from the lens is a true rendition of light onto the sensor--and in this regard Tamron tests excellently. Google "Tamron vs Nikon" and read to your heart's content.

If time and space allow me only one lens, it's the Tamron 28-75 2.8 every time.

p.s. I also love Rokinon primes, but if you sniff at Tamron, these won't be for you.
Click to expand...

Lighting, sensor and post production grading does indeed play a role, you are right, however, everything starts in camera and the lens is a strong starting point for all my work, whether personal or for business. Why do you like the Tamron 28-75, btw? It doesn't look that great from what i've seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top