So, Who's Interested in the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 DX Pro? [Archive] - Page 2

LightRules

16th of August 2007 (Thu), 23:27

Maybe by Christmas !

I last spoke with Tokina USA (in Long Beach, CA) about 2 weeks ago about this lens. Their main rep basically said to me, "Your guess is as good as mine." That's reassuring! :lol:

Christmas would be optimistic :eek:

Note: Wow, I just noticed that I started this thread over 13 mos ago. Yikes. We should send this thread over to Tokina HQs and tell them 13 months and no product is pretty lame.

CountryBoy

16th of August 2007 (Thu), 23:32

Is it just the Canon mount their having trouble with ? Seems a little strange to me.
Glad I went ahead and got the Tamron.

LightRules

16th of August 2007 (Thu), 23:54

Is it just the Canon mount their having trouble with ? Seems a little strange to me

Seems so. But even the Nikon mount isn't out in force. Strange and interesting.

Tee Why

17th of August 2007 (Fri), 00:00

jcw122

17th of August 2007 (Fri), 00:06

Ha ha ha,
What a coincidence, I was just at THKPhoto.com to check out tripods and ran into the old 16-50mm lens. It does seem available in the Nikon mount in the USA, but haven't seen a Canon mount version.

Perhaps since Hoya bought out Pentax, maybe they are using all the glass for the Pentax version. But wait, that's not out yet. he he he. Those Pentaxian must love not knowing when new products are coming up and just waiting endlessly. he he he.

As for me, I got the Tamron 17-50 and already sold it for a 20mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.8 primes to cover the same range. Speed rules in my book, yup, f2.8 was just too slow and the bokeh wasn't as good as the primes.

I just sold my 50 and got the Tamron haha! I simply hate the 50 1.8...but I'd love to have the 1.4.

What you did is actually kind of inspiring to me...I tend to use one or the other end of my zoom lenses (18mm or 200mm on my 18-200, or 17mm or 50mm on my Tamron). Getting primes at those ends is probably a very interesting solution. How do you like it (exception of differences w/ max. aperature)? Do you miss the range in between?

LightRules

17th of August 2007 (Fri), 00:07

As for me, I got the Tamron 17-50 and already sold it for a 20mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.8 primes to cover the same range. Speed rules in my book, yup, f2.8 was just too slow and the bokeh wasn't as good as the primes.

LOL. I had the 1750 for a while, then the 1755IS (just sold it), and realized those "slow" f2.8's are a compromise :lol: So now I just went all out compromise (18-200 OS) and "real speed" 30 f1.4 :D And now I'm happy :cool:

CountryBoy

17th of August 2007 (Fri), 00:21

LOL. I had the 1750 for a while, then the 1755IS (just sold it), and realized those "slow" f2.8's are a compromise :lol: So now I just went all out compromise (18-200 OS) and "real speed" 30 f1.4 :D And now I'm happy :cool:

I was just at your site and noticed that. Was you that impressed with the Sigma with OS ? Or was you tired of changing lens and went with the "Mega- Zoom" ?

LightRules

17th of August 2007 (Fri), 00:44

I was just at your site and noticed that. Was you that impressed with the Sigma with OS ? Or was you tired of changing lens and went with the "Mega- Zoom" ?

Yes, I like it a whole lot. :D I often look at the 70-200 f2.8 IS...nah. Then the 120-300 f2.8...nah. Then look at the miniscule 18-200 OS...big smile :D Throw it in the bag and go. :lol: It definitely has its place for me.

Tee Why

17th of August 2007 (Fri), 00:56

jcw122,
If I had my choice, I'd get a 10mm, 20mm, 50mm, for my wide to short tele walking around set up. When I had the Tamron 17-50mm, I would rarely use this set up, as I'd prefer a 10-20 or a Sigma 28mm f1.8 instead. I was actually looking for reasons to use the Tamron. As nice as this lens is, I didn't find it sexy. The Sigma 28mm was much more fun b/c I could get so close to things and just great great bokeh/isolation that the zoom just cannot get. Plus, I was rarely using the 17-50 at the 17mm end.

What I'd do with the wigma is shoot at 10mm and zoom a little by foot or zoom, shoot about 20mm, then at about 40-50 or so. I often found the Tamron to be a bit short though, a 17-70 might have been nicer.

Well anyway, I found that with wides you can easily make up the focal length difference by foot zooming and it's only a slight lean forward/backward to a few steps.

I tried the same with the 70-200 with the 135L, I could just take a few steps in each direction to cover the 70-200mm zoom range. No big deal. Going to mostly primes have given me much more speed but I've found that primes tend to have nicer bokeh's, they really make a small point of light bloom and stand out in the background.

I shoot double barreled with two bodies, so I'll often go with a 10-20 and a 20/50, 20 with a 135L or what not, so I don't have to change lenses a lot. If I had one body and only primes, then it may be more bothersome.

So with two bodies, I find the speed, the closer MFD, and the nicer bokeh worth the slight loss of convenience. I think it opens things up compositionally.

I used to laugh at those prime only type guys, but now I'm one of them,
If anyone comes up with a 10mm prime that is sharper and/or faster than the wigma, I'll be there and my only zoom will be the bigma. Now that, I'll never be able to replace with primes. It's just too versatile of a lens.

tokyopunk

17th of August 2007 (Fri), 01:58

Came out on 4/25 yo

http://kakaku.com/item/10506011797/

that's about 560$ new (street price) List price is like 1000$

Tee Why

17th of August 2007 (Fri), 03:01

It has not been available in the US yet. Some here may still be waiting for this lens.

DerekI

17th of August 2007 (Fri), 23:56

this is an ok-ish lens unlike other Tokinas ..usually Tokinas are fantastic like the 10-17 , very unique and original...

but I think it is way over priced , almost as expensive as my 17-40L.

it is a sharp sharp lens, but with seriously severe barrel distortion at 16-24mm , much more pronounced than I thought.

but the 16mm wide end of it is great , if I had it , I would not need a 10-xx lenses any more , I did trade the 10-22 in to get my new Ef70-300DO IS , though I am still thinking of getting wider than my 17-55 and 17-85 IS lenses.

I need to get rid of my Tmron , which I can only use in a good sunny day due to its lack of the IS and FTM , but it is tough to sell a third party stuff without losing a lot of money.

So it is kind of tough to justify paying this much money for this Tokina.

I had very hard time selling the 18-50 macro Sigma since it is not populoar at all here in Thailand.

so my point is even though it is an ok or better then average kind of lens ,with extremely good build and mechanical design , paying this much money to get a third party lens like this is seriously questionable.

it can not keep its value for a long time , and re-sell value is also very bad , I am no longer getting any third party lens priced over 400US.

I believe the Tokina 10-17 will be my last third party lens.

Take all reviews with alot of caution , most of them are too opinionated.

DerekI

18th of August 2007 (Sat), 00:01

oh forgot to mention that Tokina is paying for the mount lisence now as with Tamron.

So now , sigma is the only one stealing tech and reverse engineering, I think all current Sigma lenses will no longer work on any future Canon body or Nikon body , I read a paper talking about Canon/Nikon strategy to kill Sigma reverse-engineering lenses completely in 3 years.

So better avoid Sigma other than real cheap ones like the cheap and ok-ish 17-70 or 70 macro , but spending more than 400 US on a Sigma is seriously wasting.

LightRules

18th of August 2007 (Sat), 00:10

Take all reviews with alot of caution , most of them are too opinionated.

Including yours? :lol:

So now , sigma is the only one stealing tech and reverse engineering, I think all current Sigma lenses will no longer work on any future Canon body or Nikon body , I read a paper talking about Canon/Nikon strategy to kill Sigma reverse-engineering lenses completely in 3 years

Cite the paper and the source.

Bill Pham

18th of August 2007 (Sat), 00:14

sorry to butt in but is this lens coming out anytime soon cause i'm in need off a good walk around lens. been looking at the 17-40 and the tamron.

Bill

LightRules

18th of August 2007 (Sat), 00:17

sorry to butt in but is this lens coming out anytime soon cause i'm in need off a good walk around lens. been looking at the 17-40 and the tamron.

Bill

Bill, this lens was announced around July of 2006. It's now August 2007 and the Canon mount is still not readily available here in the states. If you go to eBay, I believe you can get some in Canon mount at about $700 USD, but they're from Asia (not US versions with US warranty). Nikon version is out, but not in force. At this point, I'd say go with the Tamron 1750 if you want a nice, fast, APS-C standard zoom. The new Sigma 1850 Macro is also a goodie.

CountryBoy

18th of August 2007 (Sat), 00:43

Tee Why

18th of August 2007 (Sat), 03:22

I too would like to see the source that shows Tokina (Hoya which owns Pentax) and Tamron is paying to license the Canon (and Nikon as well?) lens mount technology where as Sigma is reverse engineering theirs. Funny thing is, with the introduction of the Nikon 40D/40Dx, which has no built in body AF motor, many Nikon lenses no longer have AF with these bodies. No lens from Tokina and Tamron will AF with these, but Sigma quickly came out with HSM AF versions of existing lenses to work with the D40/x and some of their older lenses already work on these bodies. But I digress.

As for the recent post. I personally believe that Tokina has shot itself in the foot. The normal range fast zoom for cropped sensors has now been fairly saturated with two generations of Sigma 18-50mm f2.8's, Tamron's 17-50, and Canon's 17-55. For Tokina to get in this late after making all it's "gotta be the first to have it" crowd waiting so long, will be tough as most will have bought one or two normal zoom lens purchases.

From photozone's review of the Nikon mount so far, it's got a bit more barrel distortion at the wide end if memory serves me right, more CA than others (now a toke trademark), and it's optics weren't head and shoulders above the others. Sure it's build quality is nice, but it's also much more expensive than the other third parties.

Mr. Clean

18th of August 2007 (Sat), 10:50

Yes, I like it a whole lot. :D I often look at the 70-200 f2.8 IS...nah. Then the 120-300 f2.8...nah. Then look at the miniscule 18-200 OS...big smile :D Throw it in the bag and go. :lol: It definitely has its place for me.
Let me know when you're ready to get rid of that 120-300 burden :p:D

LightRules

18th of August 2007 (Sat), 11:09

Let me know when you're ready to get rid of that 120-300 burden :p:D

Mike, you're a generous and kindly man :lol: But don't hold your breath; this copy ain't goin' anywhere anytime soon. :p

sadatk

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 14:52

Any word on this lens?

SlowBlink

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 15:02

Glad you bumped this thread, thanks. Now I've got some Googling to do.

LightRules

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 15:03

Any word on this lens?

Here's my finding http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/zoomzoom

SlowBlink

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 15:04

Oh ya, thanks LR too. :)

DDCSD

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 15:10

Is available also.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498661-REG/Tokina_ATX165PRODXC_16_50mm_f_2_8_AT_X_165.html

sadatk

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 15:33

Is available also.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498661-REG/Tokina_ATX165PRODXC_16_50mm_f_2_8_AT_X_165.html
Oh nice, didn't know. Looks to be about the same price as my 17-40 but a stop faster and wider/longer. The review looks pretty favorable too save for CA.

I would consider it but the Tamron 17-50 is $200 less. :/

steved110

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 16:50

I was somewhat taken a back to see a RRP for this lens in the UK at £629 - that's serious money for a third party standard zoom lens , constant f/2.8 or no

I appreciate it is supposed to be built to pro standards, but this seems excessive .

photobitz

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 18:17

Here's my finding http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/zoomzoom

Interesting that the Tokina 16-50 seems to be the only lens in the range that doesn't extend for zooming. It looks very compact compared to most as well.

EDIT: Oh... my bad, I was looking at the 12-24...

You didn't throw the 17-40 in?

LightRules

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 18:20

Interesting that the Tokina 16-50 seems to be the only lens in the range that doesn't extend for zooming. It looks very compact compared to most as well.

EDIT: Oh... my bad, I was looking at the 12-24...

Yes, the 1650 extends while the 1224 does not. The new 11-16 f2.8 will not extend, from what I see/hear.

_aravena

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 18:21

The Tokina I'm interested in is the 11-16 F2.8. I already have a fast standard as do most people. Somehow I don't think it will appeal to people with the Sigma or Tammy and definitely not the Canon.

Canon is the upgrade...anything else is...side stepping really.

LightRules

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 18:25

Canon is the upgrade...anything else is...side stepping really.

If someone were to say, "Pick one, for free, either the 1650, 1750, or 1850", I would snag the Tokina without even a thought. It's the widest and (by far) the best built of the 3rd party f2.8 standard zooms. Optics are basically a wash and neither here nor there with these guys. They're all impressive.

But since price is a consideration for all looking at these alternatives, I recommend the Tamron overall.

_aravena

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 18:29

^Yeah, but to already have one and sell it and pay more for what? Rather go ahead and get the 17-55. And yeah it's the widest but meh 16.

I've found myself using my 10-20 a lot more!

LightRules

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 18:33

^Yeah, but to already have one and sell it and pay more for what? Rather go ahead and get the 17-55. And yeah it's the widest but meh 16.

I've found myself using my 10-20 a lot more!

I agree with this. If someone already has the Sig or Tam, I don't see the need to "upgrade" to the Tokina.

photobitz

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 19:46

11-16 sounds interesting... Is there a thread for it yet?

I was contemplating a UW. The Toki 12-24 was my preferred option for the constant f/4 but if the 11-16 is f/2.8 I'd opt for it instead assuming quality was up to scratch.

downhillnews

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 20:23

I agree with this. If someone already has the Sig or Tam, I don't see the need to "upgrade" to the Tokina.

Do you have any sample pics you could post? It would be OK on a 1.3 crop body? I HOPE!

LightRules

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 20:50

Do you have any sample pics you could post? It would be OK on a 1.3 crop body? I HOPE!

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/zoomzoom

The 1650 is designed for APS-C, not APS-H. So it will probably vignette at the wider focal lengths.

downhillnews

10th of February 2008 (Sun), 21:27

Well it looks like the 17-40 is still the next buy.... cant afford the $1300 16-35.

j0k3r

25th of May 2008 (Sun), 15:45

So, that lens rival with Canon 17-40L f/4?
Is it better for EOS 400d (1.6 crop)?

photobitz

25th of May 2008 (Sun), 22:14

So, that lens rival with Canon 17-40L f/4?
Is it better for EOS 400d (1.6 crop)?

which lens?

j0k3r

25th of May 2008 (Sun), 23:36

which lens?
Comparing Tokina 16-50 with Canon 17-40.

LightRules

26th of May 2008 (Mon), 00:21

Comparing Tokina 16-50 with Canon 17-40.

Having used/tested both, I would take the 16-50 f2.8. Greater focal coverage, f2.8, and sharper. The Tokina is an excellent lens, both in build and optics. It does have higher lateral CA, though. It's just that the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is optically as good but much less costly. But the Tokina kills it in build.

photobitz

26th of May 2008 (Mon), 00:50

Having used/tested both, I would take the 16-50 f2.8. Greater focal coverage, f2.8, and sharper. The Tokina is an excellent lens, both in build and optics. It does have higher lateral CA, though. It's just that the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is optically as good but much less costly. But the Tokina kills it in build.

And if you throw the 16-35L MkII into the mix?

j0k3r

28th of May 2008 (Wed), 00:25

May be someone tried: 16-50 VS 12-24 + Canon 35mm f/2, huh?

davidfig

28th of May 2008 (Wed), 02:09

I don't want that. It's for a Nikon! ;)

Davidoff

11th of June 2008 (Wed), 12:01

I went to a local store to try the 16-50 with my D70s after reading and hearing great things about it. Not too impressed with the results though, this could be a really bad copy, but let me know what you think.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/blitzchampion/tokina1650samples1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/blitzchampion/tokina1650samples2.jpg

They both look really soft to me. Both shot at 16mm 2.8 and speeds over 1/100, iso 200. Both standard settings on ACR, except 45 sharpening on the top one. Centre crops.

Better at 50mm 2.8, no sharpening, but not that impressive.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/blitzchampion/tokina1650samples3.jpg

LightRules

11th of June 2008 (Wed), 12:22

You're complaining about this? For a 100% crop, it's pretty darn good.

Better at 50mm 2.8, no sharpening, but not that impressive.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/blitzchampion/tokina1650samples3.jpg

Davidoff

11th of June 2008 (Wed), 12:36

LR, what do you think about the 16mm crops I posted?

LightRules

11th of June 2008 (Wed), 12:39

LR, what do you think about the 16mm crops I posted?

I don't see anything "wrong" with them. It's hard to say since they aren't being compared to anything else, and the scene and subject (especially the second pic) aren't going to show what the lens can do.

I tested the 16-50 and found it a solid performer vis-a-vis the other lenses in its class. See www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests/zoomzoom (http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests/zoomzoom)

Davidoff

11th of June 2008 (Wed), 12:54

By the way, I'm comparing them against my Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5

This is at 18mm wide open, standard sharpening on ACR.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/blitzchampion/18-7018sample.jpg

Same settings, but at 50mm wide open.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/blitzchampion/18-7050sample.jpg

I know they are different shots etc, but I think the centre is sharper, and so are the corners. I know the tokina is 2.8 and the Nikkor is 3.5, but still, I was expecting more. Build and AF are very nice tough. Next time I'll try a Tamron 17-50.