Tokina's new 11-16 f2.8

Antithesis · Jan 30, 2008

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0711/07111601tokina116.asp

Any thoughts? How many low light landscape shooters can there be to justify creating a lens like this? I don't think too many photojournalists are shooting with off-brand glass, so I'm just curious about their intentions.

I kinda shivered a little bit because I just bought the 12-24, then I saw the price tag at around $800 and decided it was definetely not worth it. The 12-24 f4 is an awesome lens but I think Tokina may have bit off more than it can chew with an f2.8. Better than a $1000 consumer-grade 16-85, but still...

Sw1tchFX · Jan 30, 2008

bit limited of a range eh? equiv. to a 17-25?

I'd still shoot with a Nikkor 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 and give up the fast aperture.

Oh and about the 16-85, I can't believe Nikon would charge that much for it. It's got similar MTF's to the 18-200! If you're goign to have something that soft, just get the 18-200, it's got more range and just as slow!

Big Mike · Jan 30, 2008

Canon has a 16-35mm F2.8 L...which many photojournalists (and others) really liked for film or full frame digital. There is nothing in Canon's line up, for crop bodies, that replaces that. There is the 10-22mm but it's F3.5-4.5.

JerryPH · Jan 30, 2008

Sigma 10-20 for me, thanks. It's wider and in places where you WANT to use this range, you have a tripod... that IMHO makes the faster lens useless. I don't see many landscapes or buildings moving around... thats 90% of where an ultra-wide lives and breathes.

Antithesis · Jan 30, 2008

JerryPH said:
Sigma 10-20 for me, thanks. It's wider and in places where you WANT to use this range, you have a tripod... that IMHO makes the faster lens useless. I don't see many landscapes or buildings moving around... thats 90% of where an ultra-wide lives and breathes.

Yeah, I use my wide on a tripod most of the time, I'm sure it'll get a bit more hand-holding when the sun finally decides to come out. I have a buddy who shoots weddings and he uses the Nikkor 14mm for like 70-80% of the wedding, so I could see this being useful in that regard (keep in mind he usually has a back-up shooter shooting tighter).

It also seems like having an f2.8 on a lens that you can handhold to like 1/15th might not justify the extra expense.