questions on Tokina 11-16mm 2.8

im looking at a few of these used, i noticed they do a DX 2model and they previously made just the DX. I see a lot of used DX versions in the $300 dollar range.

Can anybody bring me up to speed on the pros and cons of both versions.

What was changed or improved on the DX2?

Thanks

feel free to share your images of indoor shots with no flash, im wanting to add this for my concert shoots

I'm in the same boat! I want to buy this lens, just not sure if its worth getting the Tokina 11-16 II version over the original version. Its my understanding that there are some issues with flaring and that the latest version of this lens for the Canon mount has additional coating that is suppose to help with flaring, but aside from that its pretty much the same thing.

I wanted to see if anyone here has used both and if so its worth paying a bit more for the latest version instead of the first one. Any help, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

For canon shooters the mk2 just got new lens coating that was supposed to help with lens flare. How much it actually helps has been debated but it does help some.

For Nikon shooters the mk2 allows AF on bodies that do not have an AF drive gear and motor (and the new lens coating)

As for sample shots, the lens has a thread in the Lens sample forum (its a sub forum of this one)

Thanks gremlin, I've seen some shot from both lenses and they look great.

Heya,

I shoot with the II version. The main difference is coatings. It still flares. But it's sharp wide open, and it's at infinity at infinity. I never use autofocus. I just twist to infinity and it's sharp and in focus, every time. It's like a manual prime the way I use mine, with electronic controlled aperture. It takes filters (if that matters to you).

Great lens if you want low light ultrawide that is affordable.

Very best,

thanks for the Info

I shoot with the first version. Very sharp at f2.8 and by f5.6 its like a razor. Flare is an issue only if you get the sun very close to your field of view otherwise it's no problem. I have not compared this to the new version as this version met my expectations.

Heya,

Here's examples of flare from the II version:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oSZk​2A

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/p15v​i8

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oCmS​g7

From what I've seen both versions flare pretty bad. I bought the first version used, but also compared it to my friend's MKII, didn't notice any real difference. I loved it so much that when I upgraded I picked up the tokina 16-28. They make some great lenses

I just sold my Canon 10-22 with the Tokina in mind. Was sold on the 2.8 and from what I've seen its a great lens for videos too. I hope I made the right decision. I might roll the dice on used first version. Thanks for the info.

Dave3222 wrote in post #17156770
Flare is an issue only if you get the sun very close to your field of view otherwise it's no problem.

Where 'very close' means 'not behind you'.

Honestly, don't take my word for it (even though I own both a 10-22 and 11-16), just check out the relevant lens sample forums for the flare problem.

And f2.8 is only useful where you need all the light-grabbing of an extra 2/3 of a stop. That's astro photography or shooting inside dark cathedrals where flash and/or tripods are forbidden. If you're not doing a lot of either of those then f3.5 works just as well.

Finally, the Tokina does need to be around f5.6 for optimum sharpness. The 10-22, otoh, is sharp all the way.

hollis_f wrote in post #17157712
Where 'very close' means 'not behind you'.

Honestly, don't take my word for it (even though I own both a 10-22 and 11-16), just check out the relevant lens sample forums for the flare problem.

C"mon That's a bit of an exaggeration regarding flare. Just curious. If you own both, when do you prefer the Tokina over the Canon?

Dave3222 wrote in post #17158156
C"mon That's a bit of an exaggeration regarding flare. Just curious. If you own both, when do you prefer the Tokina over the Canon?

This I'm guessing:

hollis_f wrote in post #17157712
That's astro photography or shooting inside dark cathedrals where flash and/or tripods are forbidden.

I was hoping that Canon would have released a 2.8 UWA zoom for crop at Photokina to get more separation between the 10-18 than what exists with the 10-22. I'm guessing price wise that would put it too close to the 16-35/4 IS though.