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

Feedback needed on lens: Tokina 11-16mm

Sorry but the only thing i would argue is the composition.. there is very little distortion on most of the pics but most of the pics are pretty, excuse my being blunt, boring.

What are we supposed to look out for?:)
 
flosseR said:
Sorry but the only thing i would argue is the composition.. there is very little distortion on most of the pics but most of the pics are pretty, excuse my being blunt, boring.

What are we supposed to look out for?:)
Click to expand...

Well, they are meant to test the lens quality and to look for any imperfections, pretty and interesting is not what I was after with this test. I don't want to bias anyones opinions so I'll wait till I get more replies before mentioning what I am thinking.
 
I own this lens, its superb when I use it. Although I don't use it as much as I should because I rather carry a few primes instead.
 
peepboon said:
I own this lens, its superb when I use it. Although I don't use it as much as I should because I rather carry a few primes instead.
Click to expand...

How happy are you with the performance at f2.8? Part of my concern is that it is softer/more out of focus than it should be at that aperture.

btw, what prime do you like for landscapes?
 
I own a Tokina 11-16 and it's a superb lens. Never had any real issues with it. f2.8 could be a touch on the soft side I suppose, but then a very slight sharpen sorts that. And what's to say that all the uwas aren't a little soft wide open?
 
I don't see anything that would warrant concern. Also, I don't see any full-res versions of the photos. Judging sharpness by what you've posted is nigh impossible. Since you mention sharpness, are you talking of the photo of the bus perhaps? That's just motion blur.
 
From what I've read, supposed to be better than Sigma, Nikon, Canon equivalents. The only "issue" is ~5mm range compared to ~10-12 range.
 
runlsd said:
From what I've read, supposed to be better than Sigma, Nikon, Canon equivalents. The only "issue" is ~5mm range compared to ~10-12 range.
Click to expand...

I'd be okay with this. I bought my wide angle (the Sigma 10-20) for the extreme low end of the zoom range. You can always crop later. I'd much rather have the extra few stops of light than the last few millimetres. Might as well use an 18-55 at that point.
 
After browsing your galleries, I did not see any glaring misgivings....

I used the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on a Canon 50D for about two years before going full frame. I was so pleased, I replaced it with it's older brother the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and have been equally pleased.

The only things that ever bugged be about either of the lenses were-
-Big and heavy (Yet rock solid)
-Tad soft at 2.8, but what UWA zoom lens at f/2.8 wont be?
-Some CA in the 11-16 that I am yet to experience in my new 16-28
-Distortion, of course. Computers can fix that, and it is to be expected in a UWA zoom lens
-Backwards zoom ring

Also, it is impossible to really "inspect" the photos when the largest size is 1024x720
 
MattSepeta said:
After browsing your galleries, I did not see any glaring misgivings....

I used the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 on a Canon 50D for about two years before going full frame. I was so pleased, I replaced it with it's older brother the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and have been equally pleased.

The only things that ever bugged be about either of the lenses were-
-Big and heavy (Yet rock solid)
-Tad soft at 2.8, but what UWA zoom lens at f/2.8 wont be?
-Some CA in the 11-16 that I am yet to experience in my new 16-28
-Distortion, of course. Computers can fix that, and it is to be expected in a UWA zoom lens
-Backwards zoom ring

Also, it is impossible to really "inspect" the photos when the largest size is 1024x720
Click to expand...

Thanks...

The photo size is, unfortunately the best I could do at the moment. Thats the largest size that flickr allows without a pro account, and I don't feel I use flickr enough to get one of those.
 
You could have posted 100 % crops of regions which you find problematic in addition to scaled down versions of the original photo. There are some obvious facts on the performance of lenses:
- With very, very, very few exceptions, no lens is going to give you 100 % performance wide open, it typically peaks when you stop them down by 1 or 2 EV (e. g. if you have a f/2.8 lens, you should expect the optical performance to peak at around f/5.6 or so).
- There are some practical and physical limitations that impact image quality, some of them are specific to the lens type. UW lenses tend to show a more significant amount of distortion than tele lenses or macro lenses. They also have more falloff.
- Sharpness and contrast peak around the center.

The Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8 is according to some reviews the best UW zoom lens for crop bodies out there, surpassing the IQ of manufacturer lenses. That sets very high expectations. BTW, I own Tokina's 12-24 mm lens and I've been very happy with it as well. The built quality is a lot better than that of Nikon's alternatives.

Lastly, any lens has weaknesses, but seldomly are they significant enough to make a lens useless as a tool. One of my favorite lenses is Sigma's 30 mm f/1.4. There is no affordable alternative to this lens (with f/1.4 aperture, of course) and I very much like what I can get out of it. Most of the reviews have not been very positive, yet, because it allows me to take pictures I was previously unable to take, I haven't seen a contender for a replacement.
 
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