Tokina 11-16 vs Tokina 16-28

A

account001

Member
Just wanted to get some opinions from others about which i should purchase. The main differences i see is one is dx (11-16) while the other is fx (16-28). Im a nikon user than plans to upgrade to the d800 (fx) so either way im going to cross the dx/fx format. Any info on cinematography or format issues would be helpful.

Tokina is 3rd party so i figured all users could benefit depending where the thread goes.
 
I only have the 11-16 which I bought for my 7D, and its lovely. Later I bought a 5D and I can still use it but only at 16mm. Now heres the clincher, even at 16mm on the 5D(ff sensor) its still wider than at 11mm on the 7D(cropped sensor) ,

So I guess if you only get the 16-28, it'll be wide enough for your needs when you get the d800. ;)

hope that will help you decide. :)
 
I followed the link, seems like we are in the same situation except the nikon/canon. But like Ted said, the crop factor makes the 11-16 really 17.6-25.6 before the upgrade, after the upgrade however youll have really wide lens. So im really thinking on the 11-16 because im using it mostly for video. For photos crossing the dx/fx is a no-no, but for videos its fine. Why idk, ive just read it alot while researching. lol
 
One thing to consider is that on the D800 you'll still be able to use the 11-16mm as you would on a DX camera, so it'll work fine in that regard.

However, since 16mm is the widest it will work on the FX sensor (and 16mm on FX is wider than you'll get shooting at 11mm on the D800's DX-crop), you may prefer the added versatility of the 16-28mm - which will give you just as wide a perspective on the full sensor as the 11-16mm is capable of, but will also push out to 28mm (which on the DX crop mode will equate to 42mm which is a fairly standard perspective), which is to say that the 16-28mm will give you an ultrawide-standard zoom range on the D800 where the 11-16mm will only offer ultrawide-wide range.

So if you're after greater versatility the 16-28mm is the way to go (assuming Image Quality is equal)
 
I don't think you'll be able to use the 11-16 as a 11mm on the D800, even if it has DX mode: it will hit the mirror at anything except 15-16mm - if I was using full frame and had to buy one of these lenses now, it would be the 16-28, unless the "no filters" issue was a deal breaker (I already have the 11-16, so if I go full frame I'll just keep it as a 16mm prime)
 
Another thing to look at is the 16-28 is nowhere near as sharp above 16mm as the 11-16 is through it's whole range. I really think the 16-28 at 24 - 28mm is really soft and not all that desirable IMHO.

I'm working on trying to find a 24mm prime to go with my 11-16. I had an older EF17-35mm L f2.8 and sold it due to it's relatively soft image. The difference between the tokina was so striking in video that I couldn't keep it in the quiver any more :)

The problem is that the new 24mm f2.8 IS from canon isn't out yet and the new 24mm f1.4 L II is just over double the price I got for my 17-35L LOL!!!

Once you go down the road of this pixel peeping, nothing is good enough anymore. I'm sure you'll experience the same thing if you ever try the newer Nikkor 12-24mm f2.8!

Cheers,
Pete
 
(my usual 24mm recommendation is the non-L 24mm f/2.8 - http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00006I53R...www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html - pretty sharp lens, definitely sharper than this tokina 16-28 - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 - although not particularly fast for a prime, and I should also say Rockmore wasn't impressed by it, as compared to the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-vc set at 24mm; but that one won't work on full frame)

edit: and now that we're at it... I hadn't noticed: the tokina 16-28 is not at the-digital picture!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tokina-16-28mm-f-2.8-AT-X-Pro-FX-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I'd say it looks better than the 17-40 f/4L, but worse than the 16-35 f/2.8L II
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top