Probably the best wide angle zoom made.

[UncleLary]

Was looking for a 24mm or wider for DX D90 ( & D7000 + D70s ). Very limited options. Chose this initially over the expensive Nikkor 14-24, thought bought that one latter. And over the 12-24 Nikkor, a lens I can't stand for every reason, and over the 10-24 Nikkor. A lens that is not technically very good and perhaps even bad, but a lens I love for it's look. I also prefer the Tokina over various other zooms. Plus Zeiss primes.

Owned or own all of those now. Quite clearly the Tokina 11-16mm is sharper than all others at every apeteure. Perhaps the 14-24 has slightly greater resolution and limpid, liquid color compared to the Tokina. But the Tokina has much more snap, crackle and pop. Delivering more impact and sharper edges. More colorful and brilliant too. The Nikkor more refined. Perhaps unnaturally so. Both great, but I prefer the Tokina. Warts and all. Flares if not careful ( though not as easily as the $1,600 beast 14-24, but more chalky when do so. And occasional blue violet cast at @ wider F stops. But only occasionally. Much cleaner, clearer, more realistic and vibrant colors than all the other lenses. And the Tokina is tack at 2.8. One of the few lenses I have used that is realistically usable wide open.

I now use the Tokina on a D800 & D800e too. From 14-16mm with equally good results.

As they say, I nice piece of glass.

 

[nandbytes]

good to know, i am thinking of buying this today. Used one but the owner has been kind enough to let me try it out first. So hoping everything is as good as he says it is.

 

[UncleLary]

Great!

I suggest the thorough testing. Of every lens. I have 2 of these Tokinas. Both out of the box great.

But sample variation is very extreme. For all manufactures. And it is getting worse, not better.

I routinely shoot at least 12 different mass produced Nikkors to get a tack one. About 5 or 5 of expensive zooms, which for some reason, probably emphasis, are more consistant, if overall not as usable for me as primes.

Shoot more for Canon, Less for Leica. Which is my prefered image maker, when can use it.

Interestly, Zeiss has the most quality variation in it's lenses in my experience over many years. Probably because Zeiss is not really Zeiss. Cosina. Which was ( now?) a low end lens manufacturer for decades. Zeiss started licensing to them back in the Contax days. Those Zeiss lenses back then that were not made in Japan by Cosina and were made in Germany were always out of the box great. Of course, if you like the Zeiss look.

There is a trick to picking good samples. Learned after many years of my former job as an auditor of both financials and operations. Trade secret alas.

I sell my photos so require tack & great equipment that also dosnt break and works well. You may not be so picky. But there are differences in samples. So good job in testing. Make sure that your strobe has realitively equal output or compensatable output at each zoom length. A problem with some Nikkors and alot of 3rd party lenses. Not a deal breaker but worth noting.

 

[rurikw]

Interesting read, thanks. Lenstip says CA is "monstrous" and flare a "tragedy". Your take on that?

 

[UncleLary]

CA's I don't see at all. Overall on some occasion, as mentioned, slight blue, blue - violet cast. More widespread on global on image than Nikon's significantly more spotty, but much more prominent cast. Nikkor 85mm F/1.4 AFD unusable much of he time due to the heavy blue cast.

Flare? It does flare more than most. But not all. My 35mm F/2.0 AIS Nikkor, a unbelievably stellar lens with perhaps the best "look" of any lens flares much more. My 50mm F1.4G. acutally former - dumped it as no match for the AF-D, flared under flouresents! And overall had more flare due to internal natural flare, and dramatic flare into the sunlight.

No denying lens is more flare prone than most, but also once you get used to it, highly controllable. As opposed to the crappy images into the sun from my very expensive 14-24mm or that crappy Nikkor 50mm F1.4 G.

Not denying the issue of blue fringing nor flare, but both highly controllable and again both issues do not detract from the lens in the right hands.

Some of my images out of a D90 and the 11-16mm have appeared on magazine covers and promotions.

One thing that nobody mentioned and is by far (85%+ of the time ) the most troublesome thing with this lens, and all ultra wide angle zooms and to perhaps a lessor degree the - primes, is distortion. In particular, corner perspective distortion. Heads in the corners can be distorted out of shape. Again controllable, but perhaps tougher to control.

But again, this complaint applies to all lenses of it's type.

Suggest test shooting directly against the equivalent Nikkors. Believe you will agree with me about the vibrant, snappy, sharp images coming out of this lens vs the flatter, softer appearing, less vibrant and colorful, and perhaps less accurate but more refined color images coming out of the Nikon.

 

[Mystery member]

Your reviews sound more like wine appreciation class:

Suggest test shooting directly against the equivalent Nikkors. Believe you will agree with me about the vibrant, snappy, sharp images coming out of this lens vs the flatter, softer appearing, less vibrant and colorful, and perhaps less accurate but more refined color images coming out of the Nikon.

Neat trick if you can use your "Body English" to detect good examples.

 

[oneANT]

Interestly, Zeiss has the most quality variation in it's lenses in my experience over many years. Probably because Zeiss is not really Zeiss. Cosina. Which was ( now?) a low end lens manufacturer for decades. Zeiss started licensing to them back in the Contax days. Those Zeiss lenses back then that were not made in Japan by Cosina and were made in Germany were always out of the box great. Of course, if you like the Zeiss look.

This isnt true and needs to be considered when reading any of this poster's future comments. The manufacturing processes are nothing like this poster suggests and there is no evidence to support his claims. Further Zeiss will accept the return of any lens for test and if necessary repair. This poster is dishonest in his comments and on a forum this is his total worth.

 

[gunlbum]

Interestly, Zeiss has the most quality variation in it's lenses in my experience over many years. Probably because Zeiss is not really Zeiss. Cosina. Which was ( now?) a low end lens manufacturer for decades. Zeiss started licensing to them back in the Contax days. Those Zeiss lenses back then that were not made in Japan by Cosina and were made in Germany were always out of the box great. Of course, if you like the Zeiss look.

This isnt true and needs to be considered when reading any of this poster's future comments. The manufacturing processes are nothing like this poster suggests and there is no evidence to support his claims. Further Zeiss will accept the return of any lens for test and if necessary repair. This poster is dishonest in his comments and on a forum this is his total worth.

It's well known that some Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina. I don't personally know which ones... Doesn't mean by default that they are lower quality...

Can you clarify which part of Lary's post was untrue?

 

[JF69]

Interestly, Zeiss has the most quality variation in it's lenses in my experience over many years. Probably because Zeiss is not really Zeiss. Cosina. Which was ( now?) a low end lens manufacturer for decades. Zeiss started licensing to them back in the Contax days. Those Zeiss lenses back then that were not made in Japan by Cosina and were made in Germany were always out of the box great. Of course, if you like the Zeiss look.

This isnt true and needs to be considered when reading any of this poster's future comments. The manufacturing processes are nothing like this poster suggests and there is no evidence to support his claims. Further Zeiss will accept the return of any lens for test and if necessary repair. This poster is dishonest in his comments and on a forum this is his total worth.

It's well known that some Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina. I don't personally know which ones... Doesn't mean by default that they are lower quality...

Can you clarify which part of Lary's post was untrue?

Really? you really wanna know which part is untrue?

You either haven't read Lary's post in its entirety (since you were more concerned at taking a jibe at the other poster, oneANT), or you don't know what you're talking about but decided to let it rip anyway.

Just a pointer: look at Lary's first sentence, then look at the second too.

 

[gunlbum]

Interestly, Zeiss has the most quality variation in it's lenses in my experience over many years. Probably because Zeiss is not really Zeiss. Cosina. Which was ( now?) a low end lens manufacturer for decades. Zeiss started licensing to them back in the Contax days. Those Zeiss lenses back then that were not made in Japan by Cosina and were made in Germany were always out of the box great. Of course, if you like the Zeiss look.

This isnt true and needs to be considered when reading any of this poster's future comments. The manufacturing processes are nothing like this poster suggests and there is no evidence to support his claims. Further Zeiss will accept the return of any lens for test and if necessary repair. This poster is dishonest in his comments and on a forum this is his total worth.

It's well known that some Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina. I don't personally know which ones... Doesn't mean by default that they are lower quality...

Can you clarify which part of Lary's post was untrue?

Really? you really wanna know which part is untrue?
You either haven't read Lary's post in its entirety (since you were more concerned at taking a jibe at the other poster, oneANT), or you don't know what you're talking about but decided to let it rip anyway.

Just a pointer: look at Lary's first sentence, then look at the second too.

Cosina has been for a while at least a third party manufacturer for lenses. "Low end" might be a bit harsh.

A lot of Zeiss lenses are/were made by Cosina. Like I said, doesn't mean Zeiss are low quality now. Or that they aren't made to Zeiss QA or possibly even on separate production lines/factories. Same goes for Voigtlander.

The rest of UncleLary's post is personal opinion which I would often take with a grain of salt but it doesn't mean he should be effectively excommunicated like oneANT suggests, at least without specific response or correction.

Wasn't having a go at oneANT, just wanted to clarify. "jibe"? "let it rip"? Nothing I've said is untrue, or a personal attack, just want to understand each side. The problem with forums that don't capture tone of voice...

FWIW I'd love to have some Zeiss lenses (and a D800 as opposed to what I shoot now...) but don't have the time/money to justify the cost (

 

[richiebee]

No denying lens is more flare prone than most, but also once you get used to it, highly controllable. As opposed to the crappy images into the sun from my very expensive 14-24mm or that crappy Nikkor 50mm F1.4 G.

Not denying the issue of blue fringing nor flare, but both highly controllable and again both issues do not detract from the lens in the right hands.

How do you control the flare? I mean other than not taking the picture you want to take?

 

[ashokvashisht]

One small question on the Tokina DX 11-16 for Nikon DX camera's. I read in DPR about the specs of the 11-16 and they described it as 17-24 (eqv) . Why ? I thought that the 1.5 multiplication factor is applicable when you use a FX lens on DX camera and not a DX lens on a DX camera ? I thought that in this case the actual wide angle of 11 mm would be preserved being a DX lens.

 

[nkistrup]

One small question on the Tokina DX 11-16 for Nikon DX camera's. I read in DPR about the specs of the 11-16 and they described it as 17-24 (eqv) . Why ? I thought that the 1.5 multiplication factor is applicable when you use a FX lens on DX camera and not a DX lens on a DX camera ? I thought that in this case the actual wide angle of 11 mm would be preserved being a DX lens.

Focal length is focal length. Objects in the foreground vs. those in the background, will have the same perceived distance between them regardless of the crop factor of the sensor. Wide lenses exaggerate this perceived distance, while telephoto lenses compress it.

Each sensor's crop factor affects the field of view. Example: Tokina 16-28 lens when used on a Nikon DX camera will have the same FOV as a 24-42 lens on an FX camera. Sigma 70-200 on a DX camera looks like a 135-300 (FOV perspective) on an FX camera.

Didn't grasp that 1st part until I saw pictures from wide & telephoto lenses of the same scene.