Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

Nice shots! I like #5 best. That last one looks like something out of an Amityville horror flick.

nik.hisham wrote in post #7632258
Nice shots! I like #5 best. That last one looks like something out of an Amityville horror flick.

Thanks! That's exactly the look I was going for. Maybe I should have warmed up the colors to make the sky look orange or red or something.

CaptainTonus wrote in post #7631609
I must admit, I'm not super impressed with this lens for other types of shooting though, seems awfully soft unless you stop way down, and focuses very slow. Maybe I've got a bad copy, I'm renting it so no big deal really.

i'm betting you have a bad copy. mine is anything but soft!

as far as slow focus, i'm curious as to how much you're actually finding yourself needing to focus?

for example, at f/5.6 (one of my favorite apertures--avoids diffusion and most sensor debris) and 11mm your hyperfocal distance is a bit under 4 feet. i usually just set the focus there manually and fire away. even at f/2.8 it's only 7'.

ride5000 wrote in post #7635521
i'm betting you have a bad copy. mine is anything but soft!

as far as slow focus, i'm curious as to how much you're actually finding yourself needing to focus?

for example, at f/5.6 (one of my favorite apertures--avoids diffusion and most sensor debris) and 11mm your hyperfocal distance is a bit under 4 feet. i usually just set the focus there manually and fire away. even at f/2.8 it's only 7'.

Very true. The focus hardly moves unless you're focusing on something really close to the front element of the lens.

Maybe I'm just pretending the lens is something it isn't. I found myself going for lots of neat wide-angle flower close-ups @ f/2.8, and this is what I came up with, straight out of the camera no post-processing:

Yeah, it can't focus as close as its other UWA cousins which I hate but I'm adapting.

I just got myself "Aperture", pretty neat software.
Here's couple of photos, before and after PP with Aperture, just simple adjustment, it makes a lot of difference.

Before

Great photo Nik

_aravena wrote in post #7636575
Yeah, it can't focus as close as its other UWA cousins which I hate but I'm adapting.

if you trust your hands, you can pull off shots like these:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/ken-gilbert/3378525485/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/ken-gilbert/3384964947/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/ken-gilbert/3312648162/

Yeah...ok. I'll stick with the min distance as it is. My word...

Honestly those aren't even that wide so you could just crop a photo to make it look closer

Nice shot! I can't wait for my lens to arrive!

nik.hisham wrote in post #7636991

soileauj wrote in post #7637078
Great photo Nik

Thanks soileauj

Thanks Jeff

CaptainTonus wrote in post #7636529
Maybe I'm just pretending the lens is something it isn't. I found myself going for lots of neat wide-angle flower close-ups @ f/2.8, and this is what I came up with, straight out of the camera no post-processing:

The camera was "in focus". Once I backed up a little bit the shots got a lot more clear.

Well, obviously when you use a lens with a large aperture, you will get a very small DOF, especially when you focus on a subject very close. In this picture, you can see that the flower in front is out of focus, but the green leaves behind it are. If you want a greater DOF, use a smaller aperture.

Maybe in this case you were not able to focus on the flower in front. Other UWA lenses can focus on a shorter distance. This IS something that the 11-16 is lacking!

_aravena wrote in post #7637761
Honestly those aren't even that wide so you could just crop a photo to make it look closer

you can't crop your way around perspective, though.

i'm itching to try out a 77mm close up filter too, but the 10 stop ND comes first.