Tokina 11-16

[Soulz3urn3lack]

What's the biggest difference between the original 11-16 and the DX II 11-16? There's a noticeable price gap and was wondering if it was worth it to get the newer version or go ahead and be happy with the older one?

 

[Awiserbud]

This is an extract from ken Rockwells review site:

This Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II is a bargain of a fast ultrawide
zoom. It comes in versions for Nikon and for Canon.
This new "II" version is the same as the original Tokina 11-16mm lens, but with supposedly
slightly better multicoating. More importantly, the "II" version adds an
internal autofocus motor in the Nikon version so it now autofocuses even on
Nikon's cheapest cameras.
It is built more solidly than Nikon or Canon's own lenses.
Instead of instant manual-focus override by grabbing the focus
ring, you can switch quickly between auto and manual focus simply by pushing or
pulling the focus ring.
Optically, it's fine, and a stop faster than anything else made in
this format for use in low light.
As a DX or 1.6x lens it only is supposed to work on
smaller-format DSLRs, but to tell you a secret, it works OK at
16mm on full frame, too.​

 

[Soulz3urn3lack]

thanks! As far as AF I have a D7000 so the older model would still AF (Not that you need a lot when using a wide angle) and the coating, I'm not sure how bad the older one is? If it's not horrible I may go ahead and get it.

 

[greybeard37 9]

The older model is still highly regarded. I have the older 12-24 f/4.0 and I've been very happy with it. The build quality of these lenses is nothing short of amazing.

 

[Alx]

I examined two of the 11-16 lenses, one new in the store, and one used but in perfect condition. They both focused ok on the camera, both autofocus and manually on the focus screen, but they both had huge errors on their focus scales. When focused at a few feet, the scale would read infinity. Not just close, or within the usual extra narrow focusing scales range of wide angle lenses, but just fo far off the real distances that I was put off buying either one. Both of them had this exactly the same gross error of focus scales not matching the actual focus distance. If they can't get the focus scale to read at least close, so you can't set the distance manually by the scale, that calls into question their entire quality control process.

 

[Mike_E]

I examined two of the 11-16 lenses, one new in the store, and one used but in perfect condition. They both focused ok on the camera, both autofocus and manually on the focus screen, but they both had huge errors on their focus scales. When focused at a few feet, the scale would read infinity. Not just close, or within the usual extra narrow focusing scales range of wide angle lenses, but just fo far off the real distances that I was put off buying either one. Both of them had this exactly the same gross error of focus scales not matching the actual focus distance. If they can't get the focus scale to read at least close, so you can't set the distance manually by the scale, that calls into question their entire quality control process.

At 16mm, just how far is infinity?

Good luck finding a lens that suits you.

 

[table1349]

I examined two of the 11-16 lenses, one new in the store, and one used but in perfect condition. They both focused ok on the camera, both autofocus and manually on the focus screen, but they both had huge errors on their focus scales. When focused at a few feet, the scale would read infinity. Not just close, or within the usual extra narrow focusing scales range of wide angle lenses, but just fo far off the real distances that I was put off buying either one. Both of them had this exactly the same gross error of focus scales not matching the actual focus distance. If they can't get the focus scale to read at least close, so you can't set the distance manually by the scale, that calls into question their entire quality control process.

At 16mm, just how far is infinity?

Good luck finding a lens that suits you.

:lmao::lmao: