A Site for Photographers by Photographers

tokina 11 16

Ehsan Oveisi , May 04, 2010; 11:23 p.m.

Hi everyone
I have Nikon D700 and I am looking for a ultra wide lens. I've heard so many good things about tokina 11 16 and I see wonderfull pictures using this lens. Now i am wondering if this lens is the best possible option. If yes, then is it good to be used in a full frame camera like Nikon D700. If there are better options then what are they?


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Shun Cheung , May 04, 2010; 11:27 p.m.

The Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 is a DX type lens. You can find this review by Peter Hamm here on photo.net: http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/

Matt Laur , May 04, 2010; 11:30 p.m.

Right - that won't work on your FX-format camera. You might consider Nikon's new 16-35/4, which looks quite promising if you really need an ultra-wide zoom on that body.

Mark S , May 04, 2010; 11:32 p.m.

Ehsan, as Shun mentioned, that lens is set up to be used on a crop-sensor camera and not a full-frame sensor. If you're on a budget and not considering any of the Nikkor products, look at some of the Sigma lenses

Ehsan Oveisi , May 05, 2010; 12:57 a.m.

Thanks so much everyone. Do u think that Nikon 14 24 is the same? I know they cover two different ranges but they are both ultra wide and that is what I want. The quesion is if they have same quality regarding the images?

Dieter Schaefer , May 05, 2010; 01:37 a.m.

You would hope that the 14-24 has at least the same optical quality as the 11-16 - seeing that it costs three times as much. On FX, the 14-24 is even wider than the 11-16 on DX (FX-equivalent FOV about 16/17-24). Many consider the 14-24 the best wide angle zoom currently available for SLR.

Dave Lee , May 05, 2010; 01:54 a.m.

I had very good results with the Tamron SP Aspherical 17-35mm f2.8-4 on my D700. Could not tell the difference between it and my Nikkor primes when shot side by side. A simply amazing lens for the money. Slight vignetting at 17mm was noticed when shooting wide open, however.

Ehsan Oveisi , May 05, 2010; 04:12 a.m.

Thanks for the comments

Peter Hamm , May 05, 2010; 06:57 a.m.

I've used the 17-35 on full-frame, and it's great. All reports are that the 14-24 is better (but VERY limited, like my precious 11-16 on DX), and that the 16-35, despite a lot of (fix-able) distortion at the wide end, is too.

Me? I'd go used 17-35. You have to REALLY know that you need a lens like the 14-24. Even many who love it will admit that they rarely get to use it.

Ilkka Nissila , May 05, 2010; 09:57 a.m.

No doubt the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor is your best option in terms of image quality, but if you don't find its range or handling to be practical, then you can consider either the 16-35/4 or 17-35/2.8, and sacrifice some quality in the far edges and corners. Personally I would not consider non-Nikon superwide angles for FX; even the Zeiss superwides have some color shift in the corners which can be annoying (in the case of the 18 ZF). I use the 24-70 and 24 PC-E; they're both excellent in their own domain but not technically superwide.

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses