Tokina 11-16 Version 1 or 2?

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.

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.

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 $$$.

1Tanker wrote in post #15583630
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.

Bakewell wrote in post #15583732
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.

TimHphotovideo wrote in post #15583750
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.

Bakewell wrote in post #15583732
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

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!

Bakewell wrote in post #15586779
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.

1Tanker wrote in post #15583630
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?

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.

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

thedge wrote in post #15587304
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.

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.

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?