Thinking about the Tokina 11-16

[zeppman]

Hey everyone,

I have a d90 with the 18-105 kit lens. I really love wide angle shots, mostly of landscape and architecture. I have been considering a new lens for about a year now (this is only a hobby of mine), and I've been considering a wide angle lens, and feel like the Tokina 11-16 would fit what I'm looking for. My questions is, would this be a wise choice? Will the lens make that much of a difference compared to shooting at 18 (which is really at 27 I believe, with the crop factor) with my current lens? I understand the #1 factor in a photo is the photographer... but will this lens give me what I'm looking for, or do I just need to work on my skills instead? Just looking for some opinions from other, more experienced, photographers. Thanks!

 

[ghache]

if you shoot alot of landscape and architecture you will deffinetly love that lens. its also a fast lens that you could use for some portrait in low light since its fast.

 

[Sachphotography]

Portrait??? UM...not a good choice at all. Wide angles and landscapes it would be great.. It is a pretty good lens for the money and is has amazingly little distortion. Id say go for it. Nothing compares for the money.

 

[benhasajeep52 50]

I have it and think its a great lens. In my opinion its well worth the price. 11mm is pretty wide. 18mm on a crop sensor gives you about 76 deg angle of view. The Tokina at 11mm gives you around 102 on a nikon. Your getting 26 degree more coverage going with it. Officially the Tokina says 82-104 degree of view. I forget where but I believe that was based on a 1.6 crop.

Another 26 degrees or so of view is quite a bit over what you have now.

 

[myfotoguy]

I agree with everyone else. I have the lens too, and love it. I need to get out and put it to use more. Under creative situations it can be really fun to use.

I think the price/value is good. The build quality and IQ is great.

 

[zeppman]

Thank you all. I don't know if this will make sense, but is it at all more difficult to shoot with a wide angle lens? Or is it just different and something I will get used to?

 

[j-digg]

Thank you all. I don't know if this will make sense, but is it at all more difficult to shoot with a wide angle lens? Or is it just different and something I will get used to?

I guess its somewhat difficult ( for me ) because at 11mm everything seems so much farther away than it actually is and you may find yourself wanting to get in closer when you cant.

Also, be careful not to get your feet in the shot

 

[orb9220]

You have to shoot differently and see and compose differently.

First time mistake is usually not having the camera completely level. As even a slight tilt will add distortion to the composition. Also starting to pay more attention to foreground and more post perspective correction in post.

And yep the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is the most recommended. The most popular would be the Sigma 10-20.
.
.

 

[Markw]

I own the Sigma 10-20. I would trade it in a heartbeat for the Tokina 11-16. It is an amazing lens. Extremely low, if any, distortion, and you just cant get much better than that coupled with F/2.8.

Mark

 

[ironsidephoto]

I have it. It's terrible for people (close up distorion, hello!), but awesome for landscape/architecture. It's also only $600, which is cheap for a 2.8 lens like that. Get it.

 

[Tbini87]

Do any owners of this lens feel that the focal range is limiting? Are you ever using this lens at 2.8? Seems a little unrealistic for the focal length. I am definitely interested in this lens but don't know if something with more range would be more practical for me (sigma 10-20, or nikon wide angle lenses).

 

[Jeatley]

I hope I get it for Christmas... I have been dreaming about this lens for a year now! Need to do more work so I can get it if Santa dont hook me up!!! LOl

I really want this lens and I got to use it one day in a church. It was outstanding. But that was a year ago.... If you can get it I would recommend.... There have been a ton of write ups in the mags about it too....

 

[benhasajeep52 50]

Do any owners of this lens feel that the focal range is limiting? Are you ever using this lens at 2.8? Seems a little unrealistic for the focal length. I am definitely interested in this lens but don't know if something with more range would be more practical for me (sigma 10-20, or nikon wide angle lenses).

Don't look at the numbers as 11-16mm. That seems limiting but between 16mm and 11mm is 22 degrees of a wider view. Thats quite a bit. The Sigma's range is wider about 38 degrees. But a portion of what the Sigma covers is already covered by another lens I have. So for me the Tokina was the obvious choice. It filled a range that I did not already have covered by another lens. If you have nothing lower than 24mm, then the Nikon or Sigma may be the way to go. But, if you have the kit lens at 18mm then your already covering part of what the Sigma or Nikon would cover and at the same aperatures.

As for f/2.8 it is worth it in several ways. This lens like any other is best a stop or two up from wide open. The Sigma is the same way. 1 stop between this and the Sigma or Nikon means your shooting at f/5.6 vs f/7.2 or f/8. You also have to remember that at any given aperature even at f/2.8. The farther the subject is, the wider the depth of field is! It all deppends on how much forground you want in focus. But that 2/3 to 1 extra stop might make a difference in fading light.

The Sigma obviously has a good following. And the Tokina has its following as well. With anything there is a trade off. Faster lens or wider range.

 

[Tbini87]

Do any owners of this lens feel that the focal range is limiting? Are you ever using this lens at 2.8? Seems a little unrealistic for the focal length. I am definitely interested in this lens but don't know if something with more range would be more practical for me (sigma 10-20, or nikon wide angle lenses).

Don't look at the numbers as 11-16mm. That seems limiting but between 16mm and 11mm is 22 degrees of a wider view. Thats quite a bit. The Sigma's range is wider about 38 degrees. But a portion of what the Sigma covers is already covered by another lens I have. So for me the Tokina was the obvious choice. It filled a range that I did not already have covered by another lens. If you have nothing lower than 24mm, then the Nikon or Sigma may be the way to go. But, if you have the kit lens at 18mm then your already covering part of what the Sigma or Nikon would cover and at the same aperatures.

As for f/2.8 it is worth it in several ways. This lens like any other is best a stop or two up from wide open. The Sigma is the same way. 1 stop between this and the Sigma or Nikon means your shooting at f/5.6 vs f/7.2 or f/8. You also have to remember that at any given aperature even at f/2.8. The farther the subject is, the wider the depth of field is! It all deppends on how much forground you want in focus. But that 2/3 to 1 extra stop might make a difference in fading light.

The Sigma obviously has a good following. And the Tokina has its following as well. With anything there is a trade off. Faster lens or wider range.

very good points, and well put! thanks.

 

[j-digg]

Do any owners of this lens feel that the focal range is limiting? Are you ever using this lens at 2.8? Seems a little unrealistic for the focal length. I am definitely interested in this lens but don't know if something with more range would be more practical for me (sigma 10-20, or nikon wide angle lenses).

Yep, 2.8 is very usable even for landscapes etc as it doesnt give such a shallow DOF that it does when compared to a zoom at 2.8... at 11mm and 2.8 it has a hyperfocal distance of 7.4 feet leaving everything from 3.85 feet to infinity in focus...like stated above it does get sharper as you stop down a bit mines sharp at 2.8 and better at 5.6.