will the tokina 11-16 damage a FF camera?

so I've finally decided to step up my game and get a 5d mark iii, I use my 11-16 all the time and love it and I'm aware of the vignetting it causes on FF cameras such as the 5D III but will the internal zoom hit the sensor and damage the camera? because of the vignetting id always be at 16mm but incase i accidentaly go to 11, will i damage the body?

Heya,

It might touch... not sure. You can use it at 16mm, at least I've seen that confirmed by some users with full frame.

That said, 11-16 is a different field of view on full frame. It's super distorted it's so ultrawide, you're in fisheye territory there. Just change to the full frame equivalent Tokina 16-28 F2.8 PRO. Its' the same field of view, but on a full frame. Great lens. Costs the same roughly too. Better than buying a Canon 16-35 F2.8.

That said, love my Tokina 11-16 F2.8 II. Great ultrawide. Super sharp. Very fast. If I went full frame, I'd go to the 16-28 by Tokina in a heart beat.

Very best,

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16839898
so I've finally decided to step up my game and get a 5d mark iii, I use my 11-16 all the time and love it and I'm aware of the vignetting it causes on FF cameras such as the 5D III but will the internal zoom hit the sensor and damage the camera? because of the vignetting id always be at 16mm but incase i accidentaly go to 11, will i damage the body?

I don't think that the Tokina 11-16 will damage the OP's camera: remove the lens from the camera, and then zoom the lens to 16mm and back to 11mm while you look at the lens element moving back and forth. You will notice that it does not protrude from the lens past the mount ring.

Unlike EF-S lenses, the Tokina lenses do not protrude into the camera when mounted on it. EF-S lenses sit too deep into the body and interfere with the mirror.

I could be wrong, of course

MalVeauX wrote in post #16839913
Heya,

It might touch... not sure. You can use it at 16mm, at least I've seen that confirmed by some users with full frame.

That said, 11-16 is a different field of view on full frame. It's super distorted it's so ultrawide, you're in fisheye territory there. Just change to the full frame equivalent Tokina 16-28 F2.8 PRO. Its' the same field of view, but on a full frame. Great lens. Costs the same roughly too. Better than buying a Canon 16-35 F2.8.

That said, love my Tokina 11-16 F2.8 II. Great ultrawide. Super sharp. Very fast. If I went full frame, I'd go to the 16-28 by Tokina in a heart beat.

Very best,

how does the 17-40 compare to the 16-28? seems to be around the same price used as well

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16839985
how does the 17-40 compare to the 16-28? seems to be around the same price used as well

Heya,

The 17-40 is fairly sharp. It's weak points are that it's F4 maximum, and that corner sharpness is not what some would call `L quality.' There's a reason it's only $600ish used. It's just not an outstanding `L like some of the others. If using it for landscape, stopping down to F8 all the time, it's a fine lens for that. But if you want to use it for more than that, the F4 can be a big limitation (I would buy one, but I will not bother with an F4 zoom, when I can get F2.8 in similar focal lengths, but then again, I do a lot of astrophotography wide field, and general low light work).

The 16-28 F2.8 PRO is an excellent lens. Very sharp. But faster aperture. It's more comparable to Canon's EF 16-35 F2.8L in terms of it's features & qualities. 28mm and 40mm are very different focal lengths ultimately. 28mm is still fairly wide. 40mm is closer to "normal view" not wide, not telephoto. The Tokina's weakest points are the flare resistance, filter use is limited to none, and autofocus speed/silence. Seeing as you already like the 11-16 Tokina, I imagine you're already used to the flare, lack of filter use and noise/speed of autofocus. You seem to love the lens, so the 16-28 F2.8 is a no brainer to me. Giving up F2.8 for F4 just to have a Canon name, for no real gain? Not worth it to me. But that's why I have the Tokina instead of a Canon ultrawide. Price point and F2.8 are the biggest determination of me going Tokina over Canon.

Very best,

It's a fairly crappy lens and it only works on FF at 16mm, but it won't damage your camera.

You would be better off selling it and getting a Rokinon 14mm instead.

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16839898
so I've finally decided to step up my game and get a 5d mark iii, I use my 11-16 all the time and love it and I'm aware of the vignetting it causes on FF cameras such as the 5D III but will the internal zoom hit the sensor and damage the camera? because of the vignetting id always be at 16mm but incase i accidentaly go to 11, will i damage the body?

No damage going under 16mm, just the corners will get less sharp and then vignetting takes over (as you already have realized). You should take a look at some of ride5000's shots in the Tokina 11-16 thread on the Lens Sample thread, as a lot of them are taken with a 5Dc!

MalVeauX wrote in post #16839993
Heya,

The 17-40 is fairly sharp. It's weak points are that it's F4 maximum, and that corner sharpness is not what some would call `L quality.' There's a reason it's only $600ish used. It's just not an outstanding `L like some of the others. If using it for landscape, stopping down to F8 all the time, it's a fine lens for that. But if you want to use it for more than that, the F4 can be a big limitation (I would buy one, but I will not bother with an F4 zoom, when I can get F2.8 in similar focal lengths, but then again, I do a lot of astrophotography wide field, and general low light work).

The 16-28 F2.8 PRO is an excellent lens. Very sharp. But faster aperture. It's more comparable to Canon's EF 16-35 F2.8L in terms of it's features & qualities. 28mm and 40mm are very different focal lengths ultimately. 28mm is still fairly wide. 40mm is closer to "normal view" not wide, not telephoto. The Tokina's weakest points are the flare resistance, filter use is limited to none, and autofocus speed/silence. Seeing as you already like the 11-16 Tokina, I imagine you're already used to the flare, lack of filter use and noise/speed of autofocus. You seem to love the lens, so the 16-28 F2.8 is a no brainer to me. Giving up F2.8 for F4 just to have a Canon name, for no real gain? Not worth it to me. But that's why I have the Tokina instead of a Canon ultrawide. Price point and F2.8 are the biggest determination of me going Tokina over Canon.

Very best,

I forgot that the 17-40 is only an f4, Id probably bite for the 16-28 then I used to only shoot landscape but I'm now working on fast sports photography with my wide angles so I need a good lens that can shoot in low light etc

btw, heres a photo I took with the 11-16 on my 7d, I believe this was at 16mm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ncta​PW

>>It's a fairly crappy lens and it only works on FF at 16mm, but it won't damage your camera.

How so? Also, it certainly "works" on FF cameras at focal lengths less than 16mm (but with lots of vignetting).

I have this lens and would not qualify it as crappy.

Here's another opinion on the matter:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …X-Pro-DX-Lens-Review.aspx

"The Tokina 11-16 is a very popular lens and for good reasons. I know that I said the same thing in the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Lens Review, but, I think the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens is also a great addition to the kit."

PP

ppmax wrote in post #16841357
>>It's a fairly crappy lens and it only works on FF at 16mm, but it won't damage your camera.

How so? Also, it certainly "works" on FF cameras at focal lengths less than 16mm (but with lots of vignetting).

I have this lens and would not qualify it as crappy.

Here's another opinion on the matter:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …X-Pro-DX-Lens-Review.aspx

"The Tokina 11-16 is a very popular lens and for good reasons. I know that I said the same thing in the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Lens Review, but, I think the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX Lens is also a great addition to the kit."

PP

Pay no mind, there's plenty of hate out there for some lenses because they're not Canon, or they have known flare issues. The Tokina is otherwise very sharp, very fast, and built like an `L tank. It's a fantastic lens for the $500 range.

Very best,

ppmax wrote in post #16841357
I have this lens and would not qualify it as crappy.

I didn't mind it so much before moving to FF. This lens suffers from poor contrast, poor color, and poor sharpness on my 6D.

If someone wants a decent, inexpensive UWA lens for their FF camera, the Rokinon 14mm is definitely the way to go.

No physical problem on FF; I use it on my A2e film body from time to time. If I take off the hood, I can get down to about 14mm before major vignetting sets in. I have occasionally used the (nearly) circular vignetting that 11mm gives me as a compositional tool as well.

>>the Rokinon 14mm is definitely the way to go
I have this lens too...it's a keeper for sure

It's only shortcoming is that it's MF...but set it at F8 and you'll never need to focus again

PP

mclaren777 wrote in post #16841578
I didn't mind it so much before moving to FF. This lens suffers from poor contrast, poor color, and poor sharpness on my 6D.

If someone wants a decent, inexpensive UWA lens for their FF camera, the Rokinon 14mm is definitely the way to go.

Your copy was bad then. I have had 2, one was a bit better than the other, but both were pretty good.

16mm on a 1.3 crop