A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Featured Equipment Deals

Olympus OM-D E-M5 First Impressions Review Read More

Olympus OM-D E-M5 First Impressions Review

Josh Root gives his initial thoughts and first impressions of the Olympus OM-D E-M5 micro four-thirds camera.

Latest Equipment Articles

Lensbaby Spark Review Read More

Lensbaby Spark Review

This inexpensive gadget does indeed spark your creativity. Read on to see how.

Latest Learning Articles

26 Creative Photos of Water Drops Read More

26 Creative Photos of Water Drops

These absolutely amazing macro photographs feature a tiny elemental thing that can hold a lot of mystery. Take a moment to enjoy these photographs of water drops.


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?
Thanks
Ehsan

Responses


    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?
Thanks

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