Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 07 Feb 2013 (Thursday) 10:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Tokina 11-16 Version 1 or 2?

 
TimHphotovideo
Member
Avatar
111 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2013
Location: DMV
     
Feb 07, 2013 10:37 |  #1

Hello all,

Finally ready to purchase a Tokina 11-16. I have decided on this over the Canon mainly because I do mostly video for now and the 2.8 will be very helpful. My question is should I buy a used Version 1 or go for a new Version 2 copy. Apparently it has better coating to decrease the flare issue but I have never had a chance to try the 11-16 in 'flare-ey' situations to even tell if it would be an issue for me. Has anyone tried both? Other than flare is there any other reason to go with new? I'm on a budget so I'm fine with the used V1 copy, but If the V2's usability warrant the price then I'm all for that as well..

Thanks.


7D _ Tokina 11-16 _ Siggy 30 1.4 _ 70-200F4L
https://vimeo.com/user​9279068 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Feb 07, 2013 13:48 |  #2

There really hasn't been much in the way of reviews of the Mk II. The biggest change, was a focus motor for older Nikon bodies, while the lens coatings seem to be a non-issue with regard to flaring. You may as well go for the older one.

Had the new one dealt with the faring issues, i would have been all over it, but if this were the case.. people would have posted about it, and reviews would have been done. The flaring of this lens was the big reason i opted for the Canon 10-22, so i'll stick with it.. it's an excellent lens as well, and f/2.8 isn't that important for me on a UWA.


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Feb 07, 2013 14:19 as a reply to  @ 1Tanker's post |  #3
bannedPermanent ban

The only reason might be if you're shooting in bright sunlight with the sun in the frame, otherwise the the first version will not be an issue...ever. Save some $$$.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TimHphotovideo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
111 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2013
Location: DMV
     
Feb 07, 2013 14:23 |  #4

1Tanker wrote in post #15583630 (external link)
There really hasn't been much in the way of reviews of the Mk II. The biggest change, was a focus motor for older Nikon bodies, while the lens coatings seem to be a non-issue with regard to flaring. You may as well go for the older one.

Had the new one dealt with the faring issues, i would have been all over it, but if this were the case.. people would have posted about it, and reviews would have been done. The flaring of this lens was the big reason i opted for the Canon 10-22, so i'll stick with it.. it's an excellent lens as well, and f/2.8 isn't that important for me on a UWA.

I see. The 2.8 is mainly important because I would like to use it for video mostly so the more light the better. I also like to get really close to subjects so the extra bokeh from the wider aperture will come in handy.


7D _ Tokina 11-16 _ Siggy 30 1.4 _ 70-200F4L
https://vimeo.com/user​9279068 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TimHphotovideo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
111 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2013
Location: DMV
     
Feb 07, 2013 14:24 |  #5

Bakewell wrote in post #15583732 (external link)
The only reason might be if you're shooting in bright sunlight with the sun in the frame, otherwise the the first version will not be an issue...ever. Save some $$$.

Great! I may be shooting in bright sunlight but I will just have to pick my shots.


7D _ Tokina 11-16 _ Siggy 30 1.4 _ 70-200F4L
https://vimeo.com/user​9279068 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CallumRD1
Senior Member
Avatar
443 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Likes: 465
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Boulder, Colorado
     
Feb 07, 2013 14:45 |  #6

TimHphotovideo wrote in post #15583750 (external link)
I see. The 2.8 is mainly important because I would like to use it for video mostly so the more light the better. I also like to get really close to subjects so the extra bokeh from the wider aperture will come in handy.

You won't get much bokeh with an 11-16 at any aperture. Wider focal lengths have larger depth of field.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Feb 08, 2013 05:01 |  #7

Bakewell wrote in post #15583732 (external link)
The only reason might be if you're shooting in bright sunlight with the sun in the frame

Or with the sun near the edge of the frame, or with the Moon in the frame, or with bright artificial lights in the frame. And when you're shooting outside in sunlight with an UWA you're going to be getting the sun near the edge of the frame a lot. But don't believe me - check out the lens sample archive*.

I'm not sure why you think that f2.8 would be so much better than f4 for video. When you're at UW focal lengths the depth of field is enormous at any aperture


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Feb 08, 2013 09:39 as a reply to  @ hollis_f's post |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

Please do check the archive. Most of the pics are of a fantastic quality! I have a hard time understanding the almost maniacal hatred expressed for this lens by a few people. Apparently the world must be saved!


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Feb 08, 2013 09:49 |  #9

Bakewell wrote in post #15586779 (external link)
Please do check the archive. Most of the pics are of a fantastic quality! I have a hard time understanding the almost maniacal hatred expressed for this lens by a few people. Apparently the world must be saved!

I was happy to ignore this thread, until I read the comment about lens flare only happening when the sun was actually in the frame. Not wanting anybody to have an unpleasant surprise, I felt that somebody needed to state the truth.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,427 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 347
Joined Sep 2011
     
Feb 08, 2013 09:58 |  #10

1Tanker wrote in post #15583630 (external link)
while the lens coatings seem to be a non-issue with regard to flaring. You may as well go for the older one.

I have yet to see a side by side comparison between the two in regards to flair. Do you know of one? What are you basing this on?


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Feb 08, 2013 11:17 as a reply to  @ FEChariot's post |  #11
bannedPermanent ban

If this lens was such a nemesis on the camera world one would suppose there would be a multitude of people ridiculing it. There aren't. When these Tokina 11-16 threads pop-up most of the comments are very positive.

Is their a flare issue? Apparently Tokina thought so hence the issuance of a new lens version with nothing more than some new lens coatings, but they thought enough of the original lens to change nothing else...it must have pretty good optics. I along with most current and former owners agree.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thedge
Senior Member
417 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Feb 08, 2013 11:53 |  #12

Ive had the 11-16 flare from street lights on bridges.... Its still a great lens though.


7D - 100-400 L, Sigma 28, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Feb 08, 2013 12:00 |  #13
bannedPermanent ban

thedge wrote in post #15587304 (external link)
Ive had the 11-16 flare from street lights on bridges.... Its still a great lens though.

And this is the typical response you see on these threads..regarding the Tokina 11-16 lens.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,932 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 82
Joined Jul 2010
     
Feb 08, 2013 13:37 |  #14

Yep. I have ver 1, and it's a terrific lens, but it does flare. I don't find it objectionable, though other people might. I haven't tried ver 2, but the reviews say it does flare less than ver 1.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,427 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 347
Joined Sep 2011
     
Feb 08, 2013 14:20 as a reply to  @ archer1960's post |  #15

So far in this thread, we have one person saying the version 2 doesn't improve flair over the Version 1 without anything to back that claim up and then a bunch if bickering about how much the version 1 does flair.

Does anyone have anything relevant to the version 2?


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

15,176 views & 0 likes for this thread, 9 members have posted to it.
Tokina 11-16 Version 1 or 2?
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Aristosan
456 guests, 190 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.