The Tokinas - 11-16mm. and 12-24mm.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by igmolinav, Apr 8, 2009.

  1. igmolinav macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #1
    Hello,

    Tokina has two wide angle lenses that get good reviews:

    the 11-16mm., f/2.8, and

    the 12-24mm., f/4

    If Tokina had a 12-24mm., f/2.8, I'd buy it !!! However, since that it is not the case, I'll be getting the 11-16mm. f/2.8 My two main shooting interests are: architecture,(including interiors), and documentary, (including travelling), photography.

    I am buying that lens in New York in a very short visit and I still have a few doubts with regard to this lens. Were you in a similar situation to mine ??

    Thank you very much, kind regards,

    igmolinav.
     
  2. Kronie macrumors 6502a

    Kronie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #2
    I really liked the 11-16 but found the range extremely limiting. What body do you have? If its a Canon I would suggest the Canon 10-22.
     
  3. AlaskaMoose macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Alaska
    #3
    I use a Tokina 12-24mm f/4 for all my landscapes shots. The range is just fine for for my camera. Most times I use it from 12-16mm.
     
  4. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #4
    Hi,

    I have a Nikon D50 body. My only lens, an 18-55mm., got broken. At this point, I don't know if it would be a good idea to sell the body and make a switch to Canon. The new Canon Rebel T1i looks very amazing with ISO expandibility to 12800. With that camera no need to worry if the lens is f/2.8 or f/4. Well, a camera like that is $800 USD, quite a bit of money for me at the moment. Would you buy that camera ??

    Thank you very much for your help again, kind regards,

    igmolinav.
     
  5. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #5
    Hi,

    There is also a Tokina 12-24mm. PRO DX and a PRO DX II. Is there any substantial difference between the two besides the price $400 vs. $580 ??

    Thank you again,

    igmolinav
     
  6. Ryan1524 macrumors 65816

    Ryan1524

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Canada GTA
    #6
    I love my 11-16. It's inhumanly wide, and tack sharp. And the focusing distance can be very close. :)
     
  7. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #7
    To be honest, I didn't know there was such a thing, but my guess is that there's no difference in the optics. The first was a highly sought-after winner. There was low distortion compared to other lenses of its type, it is sharp, and it has a constant f/4 aperture. Can't say the same thing about most of its direct competitors in the sub-frame DSLR market. It's also the only popular lens Tokina makes. Why screw with a winning formula?

    Perhaps they added a new coating or something. I don't know what they did, but there wasn't much that needed changing.


    Oh, and I'd get the Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8 if the lens reviews say it's as good as the 12-24 mm optically. If it's not, then forget it.
     
  8. LittleCanonKid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #8
    According to the dpreview review...


    "Tokina has recently updated this lens; most importantly, the new 'II' model adds an autofocus motor for Nikon users (allowing AF on the D40 / D40X / D60 bodies), but also features improved coatings to reduce flare, plus a distinguishing red stripe on the name badge. However the underying optical and mechanical design remains the same, so Canon users will benefit only from the new coatings. Because these changes are relatively minor, and availability of the 'II' version is limited, we have chosen to use the original version for this review."
     
  9. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #9
    The Tokinas are optically and mechanically superior to Canon's lens. I'd choose according to how versatile you want the lens to be: the 12-24 mm has a larger zoom range and as such can also be used for normal shots. If you only want to use the lens for ultra-wide angle shots, go for the 11-16 mm.

    I still want to buy the former after I finish my PhD.
     
  10. igmolinav thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #10
    Hi,

    Between the two modells of Tokinas 12-24mm. f/4, I think I would get the the PRO DX, and not the PRO DX II. My Nikon D50 body (apparently) autofocuses with the PRO DX lens, (and with the other one too). However, the PRO DX II is $180 more expensive.

    In spite that any of the Tokinas 12-24mm. seem a very good option, I can not help being seduced at the moment by the 11-16mm. f/2.8

    I'll let you know what I chose : ) !!!

    Thank you very much again, very kind regards,

    igmolinav.
     
  11. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #11
    Yes, as far as I am aware the Pro DX II simply adds an internal motor. You can use either on a D50 but if you think you might get a consumer level camera in future I'd get the DX II - who knows how long you'll hold on to the lens for.
     
  12. seedster2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #12
    I purchased the 12-24 f4 at Adorama a couple weeks ago and I really enjoy it.

    The 11-66mm f2.8 was backordered at the time, but for the price difference I still would have elected to go for the 12-24.

    Ideally I would have gone for the Nikon14-24, but I get good performance for a 1/3 of the price.
     

Share This Page