New Tokina 16-28f/2.8 FX lens released - some sample images

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by pdxflint, Jul 7, 2010.

  1. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #1
    We've had a brief discussion about this lens in the wide angle lens recent thread, but I figured a thread of it's own might be useful to some of you. It's Tokina's first FX (full-frame) AT-X Pro lens.

    Here's the announcement from DPReview and here's a link to some sample images, although most of the info is in Japanese.

    It'll be interesting to know what the street price of this lens winds up being here in the US.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #2
    There is a thread over at FM and they are guessing the price will be $1300 or so. Also, it doesn't accept filters and has a fixed lens hood. I'd rather get a Nikon 14-24 for the same price.
     
  3. pdxflint thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #3
    If the suggested list is $1400, then that's not the same price as the Nikkor 14-24, and I'd imagine the street price might be quite a bit lower... at least once it gets out there in any numbers. Also, there are ways to accommodate gel filters on the 14-24, so it would also work with this lens.

    Looks like a nice first step into the full-frame pro lenses for Tokina from what I can tell so far.
     
  4. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #4
    AFAIK the Nikkor retails for around $1800 in the US, $500 more. Sure, many people would like to pick up the Nikkor in a store for $1200 … ;)
     
  5. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #5
    OOPS, i was talking about used prices, which I guess isn't fair since who knows what the Tokina will be used..probably $1100?
     
  6. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #6
    The sample images are very impressive. Very sharp corners, at least at f/8.
     
  7. pdxflint thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #7
    Off topic: Phrasikleia, I'm loving your avatar. Are you the artist that made it? Anyway, very cool and very uniquely personal.

    On topic: I volunteer to test one of these lenses... ;)
     
  8. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #8
    I think you could say the same of any modern lens, even an entry level lens. I would dearly hope that this lens -at over $1000- looks good at f/8!

    The picture at f2.8 does look pretty good though. But I think the challenge will be how it fares with respect to things like CA. I think the recent Nikons have been very well designed in this regard.

    Ruahrc
     
  9. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #9
    Thanks for the compliment, pdxflint. Yes, I made it. It's a collage of two photographs of me (one of me looking beyond the camera and one of me flipping my hair to get the windblown look) . I had help pushing the shutter release, but I set everything up myself and then put it all together in Photoshop. My inspiration was the "Maxell Guy" from the famous ad campaign of the 1980's, the guy getting "blown away" by the great sound of his music.

    Well, I can't say that for the 17-40mm f/4L (on a full-frame sensor, anyway). The corners on that lens are very soft, even at f/8.
     
  10. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #10
    However, of the reviews of Tokina versus Nikon, and even Canon, some of the older Tokina lenses have an edge or a least give a run for the money to some of the two brands, except in relation to auto-fucusing quickness. But considering their excellent IQ at a price that's much lower than Canon or Nikon, it's quite impressive. And yes, I understand that the lens above may be for FF bodies.
     
  11. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #11
    Absolutely. In 2002, I bought my last film dslr body and a Tokina 28-70 mm Pro SV after said lens has received rave reviews. Sure, the Nikkor was (according to the metric used in the magazine) slightly better, but it cost 5~6 times as much! I wish I would have kept that lens, I sold it after I had an accident that killed my body :(
     
  12. pdxflint thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #12
    Are you real... or are you memorex? ;)

    Nice. I remember those ads. Damn, I'm old!! :eek::(
     
  13. flosseR macrumors 6502a

    flosseR

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Location:
    the cold dark north
    #13
    hmm.. while i would LOVE that lens, I have to say, looking at US retail prices..you can get the nikon 14-24 refurb for under 1500 USD and even if the nikon costs 1800 USD... I used that 14-24 and was blown away. The Tokina would have to REALLY REALLY shine in real world applications to justify any street price over 1000 USD as a third party vendor.

    Don't get me wrong, I am all for saving money but the Nikon lens puts a whole new bar to measure up to.

    my 2 cents
     
  14. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #14
    What about Canon users? The 16-28 mm Tokina seems to be a good alternative to Canon's 16-35 mm which isn't that great optically and price-wise it sits in between the 17-40 mm and the 16-35 mm.

    If the optics are very good, Tokina might have another winner.
     
  15. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #15
    Don't know about that one, but the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is a real good lens, and highly popular with Canon users. Instead of buying the 10-20mm, I am waiting for B&H to stock their shelves and buy the Tokina. But while it was around $599.00 at B&H recently, it will probably cost more when they have it in stock again. Some other shops are asking from $699.00 to a little over $700.00 already. But the 11-16 is for cropped sensors.

    Not so for Nikon bodies, however as you can see at B&H:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=tokina+11-16mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes
     
  16. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #16
    The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is made for cropped sensors, so it's not a contender with the lenses we're discussing here. It's best compared with the Canon 10-22mm.

    OreoCookie's comment regarding Canon sums up the situation very well. Anyone using a full-frame Canon camera has a couple of lackluster choices for ultrawide-angle. Nikonians have been spoiled in that department, so I can see how the new Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 might be less interesting to them. I recently had to make the choice myself, and if this new Tokina lens had been out, I might have purchased it instead of the 17-40mm f/4L. The two current Canon UWA lenses render nice contrast and have terrific center sharpness, but on a full-frame camera they really deteriorate in the corners and at the edges--at any focal length and aperture. This new Tokina lens performs a lot better in that regard.
     
  17. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #17
    Phrasikleia:

    That's why I mentioned that the lenses I was referring to are for cropped sensors. At the same time, both types of lenses can be used with cropped sensors, including the Ef 17-40 L. Have you tried the 16-35mm f/2.5L II?

    Now, the main point I was trying to make is that the newly announced Tokina lens (at the beginning of this thread) will probably give a good run for the money to both Canon and Nikon lenses, just like it has done with the 11-16mm f/2.8 for cropped sensors.
     
  18. acearchie macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #18
    Could not some of this be down to the focusing on the body versus the lens.

    You know where the body is +3 but the lens is -3? Due to manufacturing quality controls.

    It's hard to explain!
     
  19. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #19
    Oh, OK, yeah plenty of people like to use these UWA lenses as normal zooms on APS-C cameras, especially since the build quality is quite a bit better than that of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. However, that lens has superb optics and IS, so I prefer it for use with my cropped sensor camera; I only ever use the 17-40 on that camera when I need the weather sealing.

    Yeah, I seriously considered the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, but heard rumors that Canon has a new UWA lens in the works and didn't want to pay that much for a lens that is really no better than the 17-40 (unless you really need f/2.8, which I rarely do).

    No, corner softness is just par for the course with wide-angle lenses. It's a well known and much bemoaned fact of life for Canon shooters that the two options we have (or did have up to this point), namely the 17-40 and the 16-35 II, have some sharpness issues in the corners and around the extreme edges. All reviews of these two lenses mention this deficiency; it's not a problem with only some copies. Both of those Canon lenses are very sharp in the center and have beautiful contrast and color rendition, so they're still very good performers; they're just not everything one might hope for.
     
  20. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #20
    Both the 17-40 and the 16-35 aren't very wide angle lenses on cropped sensors.
     
  21. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #21
    No, of course not. I use mine on my 5D Mark II almost exclusively. As I said above, I only ever put the 17-40 on the 7D when I need a weather-sealed normal zoom.
     
  22. jb60606 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago
    #22
    anyone buy it? I'm waiting to rent it (to see if it's worth a purchase), but can't find it yet. I don't use filters on super-wides so that's not really a deal breaker for me. I'm considering it for an alternative to the 16-35mm Canon
     
  23. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #23
    Tokina

    Having recently picked up a 5DII, I was planning on buying a FF UWA today, I was doing some last minute scouring before I paypalled a guy money for a 16-35 vI then I came across news of this tokina 16-28.

    Now, I had been shooting a tokina 11-16 f2.8 on my 50D and LOVED it. Sharp as my 17-55, built like a rock, etc...

    I called my local natcam on a whim, and a local store has a tokina 16-28 in stock. Supposedly it was on hold for a few days and at the end of today (provided the guy does not go pick it up finally) they are shipping it to my local store for me to buy up tomorrow morning!!!

    Cross your fingers for me, if I get it I will try to post some samples tomorrow night!!!

    SO happy they had it in stock at a bricknmortar, now if it turns out to be a dud, I can simply return it.
     
  24. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #24
    Congrats! I think quite a few people here are waiting for someone with first-hand experience :) (Well, I am! ;))
     
  25. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #25
    Just got back from the camera store, 16-28 is mounted up!

    I have not had a chance to shoot with it yet, but I will be shooting some night snowboarding strobist stuff tonight, post samples tomorrow.

    First impressions re: physical build: This lens (IMO) makes the L UWA's feel like kleenex origami. Tokina is NOT messing around with this.

    For those of you familiar with the Tokina 11-16, it is built like a TANK. Well, the 16-28 is built like a star wars sand crawler. I can't even describe how solid the thing is.

    One caveat so far: The lens cap. It is really THAT bad. If you point the lens downwards the cap FALLS OFF. Not sure how I am going to remedy this...
     

Share This Page