F3: tokina 11-16mm or nikon 14-24

H

Hanad

Member
Hey guys I was just wondering which lens would be more useful on the F3. Currently I only own the Nikon 28-70 2.8 and wanted to know which lens would compliment it better and which would be used more often. I really like the tokina and the price is great. The nikon is more expensive but its great as well. I was also looking at the nikon 80-200 f2.8 (for budgeting reasons)

What do you guys think?
 
The Tokina 11-16 is a fantastic lens and you cant go wrong with the Nikon 80-200 2.8. I own them both and their very solid performers.
 
The Tokina is super wide. If you are looking for a "scene setting" lens, I would look for a used Nikon 17-35 f2.8. Even for architectural kind of shooting I would and do use the Nikon 17-35 way more than the Tokina. The Tokina is a fantastic lens but for most shooters it is for specialized shots. I am not familiar with the 14-24 Nikon.
 
Horses for courses, they're very different lenses. I don't think they are interchangeable. The Nikon may be more "useful" in a general sense, but it won't do what the tokina can do. I think it really depends on what you want it to do and what other lenses you have with it.

i have a 24-70 and went with a tokina to round it out, for price as well as the extra reach at the wide end. But I intend to get a 17-55 for a more general purpose, verite lens.
 
Last edited:
Both great lenses, you'd probably find more use for the 14-24mm as an ultra-wide to medium-wide angle lens (as apposed to the 11-16mm which is ultra-wide to wide), but there's shots were you simply need the extra width - for strapping the camera to a car for example and trying to create a sense of speed, the 11mm is brilliant, 30km/h looks like 100km/h with such and extreme wide-angle.
 
Nikon 14-24 is FX and Tokina 11-16 is DX (more like the F3 sensor size). I have both and rarely use the 14-24 -- it has kind of a bulbous front end but it does not distort at all and is great on a full frame Nikon camera. The Tokina is great because it has little distortion, and no focus drift throughout the zoom range and works well even into the sun with little flare. It is also much lighter.
 
Screw filters cant be used on the 14-24mm. I've got the 17-35 and it's a extraordinary lens! But I think that on the F3 the 17-35 will be 24-48ish.

It really depends how wide you want go.
 
Vik Kamenicky said:
Screw filters cant be used on the 14-24mm. I've got the 17-35 and it's a extraordinary lens! But I think that on the F3 the 17-35 will be 24-48ish.

It really depends how wide you want go.
Click to expand...

Yes I have the 17-35 also and it is my favorite Nikon lens overall. I also like the 11-16 for outdoors. They both take 77 mm filters and work with my matte box
 
lasikdenver said:
Yes I have the 17-35 also and it is my favorite Nikon lens overall. I also like the 11-16 for outdoors. They both take 77 mm filters and work with my matte box
Click to expand...

I also think the 17-35 is a great compliment to the 11-16 tokina. If the 11-16 had an iris ring it would be perfect for those specialty shots where you need that extra wide. Needed it last month for a shot that had to cover both sides of a pool.

Of course the rehoused Duclos version of the 11-16 has the iris ring and it's PL mount, but then its not as cheap. Still the Duclos version is found in many professional cinematographer's kit because even at $3,500 it's cheap for good PL glass and fast for a cine zoom at F2.8 (T3.1).
 
Last edited:
I own both the Tokina 11-16 and the Duclos 11-16, and have rented the Ruby 14-24mm. If I had the extra cash I would pickup a Ruby 14-24mm in a heartbeat. It is very very sharp and a very well done rehousing by Stuart. Note that the original 14-24mm will focus Nikon direction.
 
I've used them both, 11-16 and 14-24, How wide do you need it, I have used the 14-24 mostly for corporate work and it was fine. The 14-24 Nikon cost just under $2K, a Duclos conversion for for that lens is around $350 (2 gears) and maybe another $50 for shipping. So all total you might spend around $2500 for the 14-24, the Duclos 11-16 cost around $3500.00 which includes a PL mount. Both lenses are wide enough for run and gun off the shoulder but I prefer something a little more tighter then a 16mm when working off the shoulder.
 
thanks guys for all your responses. Do you think I should then sell my 28-70 les and get a nikon 17-55 + 11-16 tokina?
 
You need longer than 55mm and the 17-55 has no iris ring. The lack of an Iris ring is less of a problem with a prolock, but not usable on all cameras.

IMHO:
11-16 Tokina
17-35 Nikon
28-70 Nikon
80-200 Nikon (three ring)

All three of the NIkon lenses have iris rings, are F2.8 and are the metal Pro versions built like tanks. The 80-200 needs lens support.
 
Hi Duke,

I have the mtf nikon to f3 adapter and it has a apeture ring on the adapter, so I think the 17-55 would work. But I do agree with your lens choices They make perfect sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top