Tonika AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 Lens for Nikon Mount

Started Aug 13, 2012 | Discussions thread
MTT Veteran Member • Posts: 4,954
Thanks, good info!!!

If you remember I was looking at the Sigma 50-150 which I still want. But my next shooting event will involve more indoor shooting of there new building so now I'm looking at a good wide angle. So I do want the best corner sharpness I can get. That's why I'm favoring the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8' And since the II series has the built in focus motor and hopefully less CA since it has a special coating now and only $80 bucks more, I will probably end up with that one. I'm like you I wished the lens was wider and had a longer zoom, but I can give up the 10mm for better edge sharpness. Also the newer Nikon models does really well controlling CA on the newer models, that's something I just don't see on my D300 & D300s. Should be the same with your D3200.

My widest lens I have now is my Nikon 17-55mm, but it's corners are not to impressive and does not make a very good wide angle lens. Hopefully the Tokina will do better on the corners then my 17-55mm.

Thanks for the info, this will help on my decision on which lens to buy.


motobloat wrote:

MTT wrote:

So far I been favoring this lens over the others. So I may end up buying one in a couple of weeks. I just like to fine one with the sharpest corners and the least amount of distortion. But with ultra wide angle I guess you have to compromise and not be so picking. None of them are perfect.

Indeed, they are all different. Depends on what your priorities are. I wanted a good all-arounder that didn't make too many big compromises, and went to 10mm (so after some debate I excluded the Tokina and Nikon 12-24 lenses). I also wanted to use regular filters (so that excluded the Sigma 8-16). I also really wanted a constant aperture lens, but it wasn't a must-have.

I finally settled on the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 and I'm happy with it. As Roger Cicala wrote in his wide-angle DX roundup, the "Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 has a bit more distortion than the others but delivers very nice images and is also built well. It does everything well." Sort of a jack of all trades lens - no major problems, but no big wins in any category either.

The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 was a close second due to it's large aperture, but I didn't like the short range (only 5mm), the lack of a 10mm position and the very high CAs. I also have a D3200 as a backup and I wouldn't have had AF on that camera if I bought the old version. The Tokina 12-24 f/4 also was a close runner up, but I decided that I really wanted something wider.

These were my notes on looking at the different wide angle lenses I considered:

  • The biggest range goes to the Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 (or the Nikon 10-24 or Canon 10-22) -- but the Tamron isn't very good optically (and the Canikon versions are expensive)... [My Sigma is close enough at 10-20.]

  • The biggest aperture goes to the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - but then you get that short range of only 5mm... wish they could have made it a 10-20 f/2.8, but then it'd be a 105mm filter I suppose... [My Sigma is 2nd best at a constant f/3.5, and the only other constant aperture option (besides the 12-24 lenses)]

  • The least distortion at 10mm goes to the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 - but it has that small max aperture. The Canon 10-22 beats the Sigma slightly, but it's only available for Canons of course. [My Sigma is in the middle here.]

  • The best corners at 10mm probably goes to the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - or maybe the Canon 10-22. [My Sigma 10-20 does poorly here, but so do the Tamron and the Nikon at 10mm in the corners.]

  • The least vignetting on average is the Nikon 10-24, followed by the Tokina 11-16 - as long as you exclude f/2.8 from the Tokina's results. At 10mm f/5.6, it's a toss up between most of the lenses. The Tamron and the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 are worse than the others here though. [My Sigma is in the middle here.]

  • The least average CA's goes to the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, with the f/3.5 version being a close second. This is where the Tokina is probably the worst, except maybe for the Tamron. [My Sigma is a close 2nd here.]

  • The best build quality is probably a tie between the Sigmas and the Tokinas, according to Photozone anyway. [My Sigma is on the high end here.]

Other random notes:

  • The Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 gets a black mark for its oddball 82mm filter size (the rest are 77mm).

  • The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 gets a black mark for being the only one without a built in focus motor (now available on the new "II" version however).

  • The Nikon gets a black mark for being the most expensive, despite offering average image quality and average build quality compared to alternatives.

  • The Canon gets a black mark for being the only one not to include a lens hood with the lens (an extra $30).

  • The Tamron gets a black mark for being the only one that doesn't offer full-time manual focusing (i.e. just grab the focus ring to adjust the focus) AND another mark for being the only lens to not include a distance scale.

  • Other lenses to consider would be the Sigma 8-16, Tokina 12-24, and Nikon 12-24 (all good lenses, but not quite what I wanted in terms of focal length, aperture, and filters).

-- hide signature --

This is me Post Processing. If only I can get it right the first time!

Full time auto tech, part time photographer. Mark Thompson/MTT
Louisville, KY. USA

Why do you have to 'put your two cents in'.. but it's only a 'penny for your thoughts'? Where's that extra penny going to?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow