I can only say that I have never been disappointed by a lens than this one. It is not sharp. Maybe I was expecting more. I have cheap 100-200 $ lenses that performs better than this one. I wrote to Tokina customer support who tokk a week before answering. I provided them with photos like they asked and I have not heard back from them. Overall very disappointed.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Not so fantastic
- Thread starter cavemen
- Start date
Which is why I never dare to buy such glass online.. I just bought one, quickly checking the first copy in the shop -it was OK. Which many copies are clearly not. The percentage of lemons is way too high, seemingly, but the vast majority of users seem to be quite satisfied, like I am.
But I can't use the peripheral AF points, and lots of the people complaining clearly haven't followed Tokina's advice about sticking to central AF. Which in the case of a DX UWA isn't that limiting IMHO.
There are quite a few mistakes that can be done with this type of lens. First, one cannot really say its unsharp without doing LV focus, preferably on a tripod. Second, corner softness may be strongly influenced by not-flat focus surface - I think that applies for the 11-20. Third, the corners may be extremely sensitive to camera shake, it's just geometry at work. And people used to VR fixing things - there is no VR on this lens, and it would not have been able to fix that problem adequately anyway. Fourth, with 20+ MP sensors and pixel peeping, DOF may not be what you thought it to be, and the rules of thumb taught you. Fifth, shooting on a tripod @f/16 is the only way to easily conclude that it can't be sharp - it will of course not (diffraction) be very sharp @f/16, but if it's bad then, it can't be good.
Centrally and at f/4-5.6, this lens is up with the best primes in sharpness, it's better than its predecessor the 11-16/2.8, which in itself was very good by most standards. I have both versions, and it looks like the lenstip review is adequate:
http://www.lenstip.com/451.4-Lens_review-Tokina_AT-X_PRO_DX_11-20_mm_f_2.8_Image_resolution.html
It's rather incredible if the Tokina people are not up on their toes to cater for problems like those described here - maybe Tokina is its own worst enemy? They should be eager to get the lemons removed from circulation, and offer swift assistance to new users experiencing problems. And AF complications is really a "built-in" problem with this lens. One week's response time is unacceptable, and for this lens, even mediocre performance is out of specs IMHO. It should be very good.
Last edited:
I totally agree with you. But when it comes that using a lens limits you to use a tripod all the time and be locked to some f-numbers, then I'm out. This lens can be good for some people, personnally I was expecting to carry it when travelling. I think I will stick to my old Nikon lenses and forget about the ultra-wide shots. But to all this, my thumbs-down goes to Tokina Customer service. That is enough for me to forget about their products.
sinkas
Senior Member
Sorry you have a bad copy. Mine is fantastic.
I took this shot with a simple 150$ Nikon plastic lens (Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G). I can't do that kind of sharpness with the $800 Tokina.
and they are not professionnal enough to reply to an unsatisfied customer. I think your shots are much better beacause you have a 24 mPix camera, so my recommendation is that if you don't own a high-resolution sensor camera, don't buy this lens.
and they are not professionnal enough to reply to an unsatisfied customer. I think your shots are much better beacause you have a 24 mPix camera, so my recommendation is that if you don't own a high-resolution sensor camera, don't buy this lens.
Tripod is just for verification. I didn't even use it for checking my new 11-20, because i could see from the hand-held results that it was OK. I'm totally with you on the customer service - to me, it seems like shooting themselves in the foot, in a very precise and harmful way: They need new customers like you, I'm already in and aware of the potential problems and how to tackle them. Just get the thing returned, if you can, and move on.
Vivas7
Member
Sorry to hear about he experience , for this money every lens should be checked before leaving the factory ,there is no excuse technology being what it is .
i own one of these lenses ,got it off eBay ,I'm a landscape photographer,Mainly bought this for Aurora shots ,so wide open 2:8 and slow shutter ,manual focus and of course tripod .
I have to say IN MY CASE , better than Nikon equivelent .
but sadly not with yours , as I appreciate .
Tokina need to get customer service knocked into shape .
hope your next lens fairs better .
i own one of these lenses ,got it off eBay ,I'm a landscape photographer,Mainly bought this for Aurora shots ,so wide open 2:8 and slow shutter ,manual focus and of course tripod .
I have to say IN MY CASE , better than Nikon equivelent .
but sadly not with yours , as I appreciate .
Tokina need to get customer service knocked into shape .
hope your next lens fairs better .
briantilley
Veteran Member
We'll probably never know - the OP hasn't returned since making this complaint in January 2016.
Grove39
Active member
Obviously this in an old post but i bought one recently and it seems fine to me.
Not exactly sure what OP was expecting or what he replaced it with but for my needs it does a pretty good job.
All hand held apart from the 4th photo and the river shot which were on a Gorillapod.
--
I'll help with things i know about and not guess about the things i don't.
Not exactly sure what OP was expecting or what he replaced it with but for my needs it does a pretty good job.
All hand held apart from the 4th photo and the river shot which were on a Gorillapod.
--
I'll help with things i know about and not guess about the things i don't.
Last edited:
BirdieMaker
Leading Member
I went through three copies, each having a different issue. After that, I bought a Nikon 14-24, and that was it.
The reports of Tokina stating to limit the use to just the center AF point is ludicrous. Others having to stop down to f4 or smaller ... why by a f/2.8 then?
The lens is a great idea, but poor execution. Perhaps if it was made by an OEM, it'd be better, but perhaps there's a reason why they don't.
People who are "happy" with it, I question how they use it and what they deem as acceptable.
First, the incidence of faults with the 11-20 isn't anywhere near the level you may be interpreted to imply (Estimate of rate from 3/3...?). But happy customers tend to shoot with it rather than write in fora. If you had tried actual shooting with a decent copy, you would have found that the use of the center point isn't that limiting with this type of lens. And I had a fairly high proportion of keepers even at f/2.8 with mine. (It was stolen, so at present, I'm back to the 11-16/2.8.)
It was, as tests on adequate copies also bring out, better than the 11-16/2.8 in all relevant optical parameters. - But, while AF works fairly well everywhere on my old 11-16, peripheral focus points were all over the place with the 11-20. With contrast detection AF, as we can always use with static scenery, or on-sensor phase detection AF, this peculiarity should not have to be a problem.
So, there are a lot of ways to use this lens and be happy with it. I know only one limitation, but that's important: With adequate phase detect AF, it would have been close to ideal for photojournalism. As it is, it is usable, but severely limited in low light/good subject isolation. For shooting at f/5.6-8, which I mostly used for ordinary shooting, you don't really miss precise AF much. But you will greatly appreciate the very good image quality.
BirdieMaker
Leading Member
I find not being able to use any of the other cross hair AF points on my bodies extremely limiting. There's more to having a 2.8 UWA than only shooting at dead center and f/5.6.
Sure it is. And I didn't try to argue that this model should somehow work well for you
My point was that in spite of the dysfunctional AF, there are quite a few ways to use this lens productively. But the difference towards the 11-16/2.8 tends to get blurred: Stepping down for focus safety reduces the performance difference between the two. And with a subpar copy, as I suspect DXOmark got, the older model may even come out better.
AndreyBess
Member
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 1
Hi,
Do you mean that it is better to buy 11-16 over 11-20 in case 116 costs about $50 less?
Do you mean that it is better to buy 11-16 over 11-20 in case 116 costs about $50 less?
AndreyBess
Member
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 1
ZenGeekDad
New member
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3
I suspect you got a bad lens copy. I've had a Tokina 11-20mm nearly 2 years, and it's a favorite. I'm very picky about sharpness. Mine gives among the sharpest images of my current 6 lenses.
My first-ever DSLR lens was a bad copy. Drove me crazy. It was Nikon's APS-C workhorse 18-105mm, which posted solid test results here at DP Review (for a zoom, and a non-pro lens). But for me, its best focus was frustratingly soft. I tried forever to better learn the craft. But as I added other lenses, I eventually concluded my 18-105mm copy was just bad.
My first-ever DSLR lens was a bad copy. Drove me crazy. It was Nikon's APS-C workhorse 18-105mm, which posted solid test results here at DP Review (for a zoom, and a non-pro lens). But for me, its best focus was frustratingly soft. I tried forever to better learn the craft. But as I added other lenses, I eventually concluded my 18-105mm copy was just bad.
CMCM
Veteran Member
I recently got the 11-16 and it's superbly sharp and also one of my favorite lenses. I decided to get the 11-16 for a couple of reasons, one of which was that there were way more positive reviews out there on this one compared to the 11-20. I bought it at a camera shop and was able to put it on my camera before buying, so going out the door I knew it was a good copy. Perhaps the 11-20 is just as good, but I was OK losing the extra 4mm on the longer end...I basically wanted the lens for astrophotography so was more concerned about the 11mm end of it.
Vivas7
Member
Sorry to hear that , sounds like you have a duff one ! Although I sold mine a few months ago , I had no problems with it , only it’s size . Since moving over to micro 4/3rds I invested in a Laowa 7.5mm F2. Really small but optically the best I’ve ever witnessed in m4/3 ,the down side an auto focus and completely manual exposure , which for me is a plus (northern lights ) .
Your right about Tokinas service department, veeeery slow .
hope you can get a better one
thanks ,Dave
Your right about Tokinas service department, veeeery slow .
hope you can get a better one
thanks ,Dave
AZheaven
Senior Member
I had this when I shot Nikon. Bought it specifically for when I go to Horseshoe Bend and Meteor Crater. Must have had a good copy because it served me well when I had it. But barely used it.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum