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 10 Apr 2013 (Wednesday) 10:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Tokina 11-16mm Mk II worth it?

 
ryguy55
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
17 posts
Joined Oct 2012
     
Apr 10, 2013 10:55 |  #1

After lots of decision making, I've decided to add a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 to my collection rather than Canon's 10-22mm f/3.5. To my understanding the mk II fixed a lot of flaring and CA issues, but I wanted to know from people who have actually used the lenses if the mk II is worth the price difference since I've read that the flaring and CA is still a bit of an issue with the mk II as well. Thanks!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ap70mm
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Joined Oct 2012
     
Apr 10, 2013 14:39 |  #2

ryguy55 wrote in post #15811750 (external link)
I've read that the flaring and CA is still a bit of an issue with the mk II as well. Thanks!


I read the same from other professionals and settled with MK 1. I'm happy with it.
:)


Canon 60D | Canon 15 -85 EF-S|Sigma 30mm | Tokina 11 - 16 |Canon 70-300 1:4-5.6 IS USM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 120
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Apr 10, 2013 14:46 |  #3

I owned it. It was an excellent quality lens.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Judsonzhao
Goldmember
Avatar
1,198 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Apr 10, 2013 14:56 |  #4

dunno how they improve the flare issues, but mark II seems mainly to improve the focuse motor, of course worth owning.


Fly me away.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Apr 10, 2013 19:49 as a reply to  @ Judsonzhao's post |  #5
bannedPermanent ban

Enjoy your new lens. I had the version one and was very pleased with it...as were most owners. Any minor flare issues (typical in UWA lenses) have been reduced with new lens coatings. Great lens!


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobfather
Member
57 posts
Joined Apr 2009
     
Apr 10, 2013 19:57 |  #6

Don't bother, it's essentially the same lens with slightly different coatings. Only the Nikon version got a focus motor upgrade.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeD18
Member
107 posts
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Ormond Beach
     
Apr 10, 2013 20:05 |  #7

bobfather wrote in post #15813802 (external link)
Don't bother, it's essentially the same lens with slightly different coatings. Only the Nikon version got a focus motor upgrade.

I've been researching this lens, as well. I've come away thinking the only difference between I & II is a focus motor for lower model Nikons, that don't have the body AF.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Apr 10, 2013 20:11 |  #8

Not enough difference for Canon users to upgrade; mainly for Nikon.


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nikesupremedunk
Goldmember
Avatar
1,131 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: ny
     
Apr 10, 2013 22:34 |  #9

wow, didn't even know there was a v2. I had the first one and it was worth every penny. Only sold it because I got a 5D2 and didn't want a 16mm UWA prime.


| Andrew | 5D Mark II | EOS-M | Canon 17-40mm f 4 L | Canon 35mm f 1.4 L | Canon 100mm f 2.8 L Macro | Canon 70-200mm f 4 L IS | Canon EF-M 22mm f 2.0 | Speedlite 430EX II|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Apr 11, 2013 08:09 |  #10
bannedPermanent ban

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #15814416 (external link)
wow, didn't even know there was a v2. I had the first one and it was worth every penny. Only sold it because I got a 5D2 and didn't want a 16mm UWA prime.

I felt the same way when moving to FF...hated to lose that lens. Was forced into buying the Canon 14mm in order to keep the quality/sharpness I had been experiencing with the Tokina.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ryguy55
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
17 posts
Joined Oct 2012
     
Apr 11, 2013 10:44 |  #11

Thanks for the help, this is exactly what I needed to hear! It's going to be used as a landscape hobby lens so saving $150 on the model slightly worse coating is totally fine in my book.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Apr 11, 2013 10:50 |  #12
bannedPermanent ban

ryguy55 wrote in post #15815852 (external link)
Thanks for the help, this is exactly what I needed to hear! It's going to be used as a landscape hobby lens so saving $150 on the model slightly worse coating is totally fine in my book.

Let us know how it works out for you...I think you'll be pleased.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,277 posts
Likes: 108
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Apr 11, 2013 11:10 |  #13

First, do you really need f2.8 on an ultrawide? Very few people actually do... maybe photojournalists. f4 and even f5.6 are usually fine, for most of us. 10mm, 20mm lenses are very easily handheld, so large apertures aren't all that important for lower light situations (not to mention that cameras are offering higher and higher usable ISOs with each generation). And with a wide lens such as these, it's not like you are going to get or be able to use strong background blur effects very much, the other reason to have larger aperture lenses. The trade off to get f2.8 is a much narrower range of focal lengths... and a higher price than some other ultrawides (including a sibling Tokina model).

Also, larger aperture lenses tend to be more prone to flare, and the 11-16mm is no exception. Flare is a bigger concern with a very wide angle of view, because you more often have some bright, specular light source in the image.

I just bought a used Canon 10-22mm for a little less than a new Tokina 11-16/2.8 sells for. IMO, in terms of IQ the Canon is the best available UWA for crop camera... Because it's unusually good at controlling flare and very sharp edge to edge. What it lacks is "feel"... it doesn't give the same sense of durability as the Tokina, in particular, or other third party lenses. I have to say this is probably just appearances... The Canon is a bit more plasticky, while the Tokina - for example - feel almost "L-like". It doesn't mean the Canon isn't at least as durable, reliable as the others... it probably is... might even be more-so. I know the Canon is among the very best performing (IQ, USM).

I'm not panning the Tokina... It's a good lens. In fact, I have the Tokina 12-24/4, which sells for a lot less than either the 11-16 or Canon 10-22mm, and also feels better built than the Canon. It's not quite as wide as either of those, not quite as good controlling flare as the Canon, tho it's actually very good at it and better than most (including the 11-16, which is one of the worst). I rank the 12-24 second behind the Canon for it's image quality, flare resistance, build quality and nice price. It's just not quite as wide, and 2mm can be a big difference at this extreme.

Due to it's price and propensity to flare, I rank the Tokina 11-16 third. IMO, this puts it in sort of a tie with the another interesting lens, the Sigma 8-16mm. This is the widest non-fisheye available for crop cameras. Ther's a huge difference between 8-16 and 11-16, though.

Another Sigma, the 10-20/3.5 (non-variable aperture version), might be a rival to the two Tokinas, too, but has been rather expensive. When I bought my first UWA, I thought I might be using it more with studio strobes, where a variable aperture can be a pain. So that was a strong point for the Tokinas over everyone else at the time. Sigma has more recently added this version of their 10-20, with a non-variable aperture. It is one of the largest of these lenses, tho, using an 82mm filter where the others all use 77mm. I have not had the opportunity to compare this lens. Ultimately I found I didn't use this lens much in studio situations, so really needn't have been concerned about the variable aperture... Which is why I've since bought the Canon 10-22mm.

The "bottom rung" of crop camera ultrawides, IMO, are the cheaper Sigma 10-20 with the variable aperture and the Tamron 10-24mm. These are also the least expensive (the free market at work!) and actually are pretty decent lenses with a lot of happy users. The Tamron offers the widest range of focal lengths of any of these lenses, but is a little soft at the 24mm end of the zoom. The Sigma is a little more prone to flare effects and not quite as sharp off-center as some of the other lenses.

All these lenses are pretty darned good and none of them are perfect. Few people have used them all, I'm sure. I bet most pick one and just swear it's the best. I've been lucky to have tested and used the Tamron, Sigma 10-20 variable aperture, both Tokinas (in their first versions, but 2nd versions are similar), and the Canon 10-22. I'd like to try the 8-16mmm some time, though I really don't use such a wide lens all that often.

All these lenses have slightly different features, so just pick the one that best meets your particular needs and fits within your budget, then go for it! You really can't go far wrong with any of them. They all have their strengths and weaknesses... but they all are fun to use.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII, 7D, M5 & others. 10-22mm, Meike 12/2.8,Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, EF-M 22/2, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Sigma 56/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS, 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Apr 11, 2013 11:24 as a reply to  @ amfoto1's post |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

Do you need/want the 2.8 of the Tokina? Do you need/want the crystal sharp image of the Tokina? Do you need/want the great build quality of the Tokina? Do you need/want the superior warranty of the Tokina? Do you need/want the lower price of the Tokina? To all these questions I say...yes! Why not?

(Is Tokina hiring?)


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tmuussoni
Senior Member
330 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Oct 2011
Location: .FI
     
Apr 11, 2013 11:54 |  #15

The Canon 10-22mm is without a doubt one of the finest UWAs for crop cameras. Really useful focal lenght and excelent image quality.

However, for me the Tokina 11-16 is equally awesome. Sharpness and overall image quality they are pretty much equal to Canon, but Tokina has f/2.8. Now it's true that in normal circumstances (e.g. landscape photos and sceneries) you are probably never going to need f/2.8. However in some circumstances, like if you are into shooting it complete darkness such as in astrophotography (northern lights, star trails etc.) f/2.8 is a huge, huge help! When I had a crop DSLR I made the switch from Canon 10-22 to Tokina, and I never felt bad about that (then again I needed the f/2.8). Overall image quality between the two I never really noticed a difference.

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is an excelent UWA. In my taste the CA was minimal/almost unnoticeable. It's only weakness in my opinion was the kinda non-pleasant flares and ghosting. This is kinda subjective imo. I never tried Tokina's second version, but it is my understanding that the version 2 only improved here slightly. It's kinda strange for me that Tokina has never really mastered multicoating. It's lenses usually have more flare and ghosts than Nikon or Canon's lenses, but then again maybe some people want these in their ultrawide shots to emphasize the sun. I guess it's more of a coating issue than larger aperture, because my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 really does not have the ugly flare, then again it costs about 4-5 as much than the Tokina :D.

So in my opinion OP made a smart choice, the Tokina is an excelent uwa lens. And it does work as 15-16mm prime on full frame, I used that combination for a long time as a stopgap.


Flickr (external link)
Gear list

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

8,533 views & 0 likes for this thread, 13 members have posted to it.
Tokina 11-16mm Mk II worth it?
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 2.55forum software
version 2.55 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is marthabrand134
918 guests, 144 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.