Comments on: Tokina AT-X 16-28 F2.8 PRO FX lens (F-mount) now official

By: Kensmokecrakrockwell

Kensmokecrakrockwell — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:00:00 +0000

The naysayers just dont get it. They’ve probably never owned a tokina lens. The tokina 11-16mm is the best lens i’ve ever owned for dx. I pre-ordered it on adorama….took me almost half a year to get. And boy was it worth the wait The best pictures i ever took were with this lens on a d300, but i’m gonna one day get my life together and move up to full frame. When the d700 replacement comes out…i’ll wait………….still waiting……..

ONCE AGAIN

HAS

NOT

BEGUN

By: CCCP

CCCP — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:28:51 +0000

NikonRumous suits well as a name of forum! “i think”, “I would”, “I would not” etc. Buy one of this lens and have something to compare, something to talk about. Does it matter for how many Oscars got the movie, to help you deside weather watch it or not?

By: longtimenikonshooter

longtimenikonshooter — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 06:33:20 +0000

Error still present !

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:00:43 +0000

I don’t get all the naysayers. After closely inspecting the sample images shot on a D3X, I’m anticipating this lens will sell well (once the street price sinks to around $900). Only the extreme corners soften a bit and it’s not that bad. The lack of optical distortion is remarkable. Tokina’s are notorious for their CA but the samples are really clean (albeit the D3X processing engine did some work there too).
While I agree that it’s a bit odd in that it doesn’t go all that wide or accept filters compared to Nikon’s offerings, I expect the image quality combined with price will again make this Tokina another viable option for many.

By: Rafael

Rafael — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:17:37 +0000

no, not fixed

By: kururu

kururu — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:46:10 +0000

$800 for street price plz.

* yeah comment fixed, it’s me ^_^

By: i_want_a_D900

i_want_a_D900 — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:34:10 +0000

Thinking about it, I think this lens is more for Canon folks than Nikon folks. the 16-35 f/2.8L MkII really isn’t that great.

It is really strange for a 3rd party manufacturer that comes up with a wide lens that
1) does not take filters
2) not hitting 14mm wide
3) only hits 28mm on the long side
4) Weights 2.1 pounds.not light at all. i would rather carry a 14-24.

optically it should be great within the range, no questions asked. for nikon folks who want maximum quality ultra-ultra wide , they would carry the 2.2 pounds 14-24. if they want light weigt, versatillity, using filters and VR, they would pick the 16-35. esp now that 16-35 is down to $1150 and comes with real AF-S. The Tokina would have to perform like a 14-24 in the same range and sell for a bit less than the 16-35 to attract nikon FX customers.

By: Kensmokecrakrockwell

Kensmokecrakrockwell — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 05:17:33 +0000

Tanx roscoe ( or whoever) you are. Actually i had the 11-16. I lost it….but it was as every bit as good as a nikon lens. Built like a tank….sorry lens cap though. This will make a great companion to my 24-70mm. For $800 im sold. And a pelican case with a titanium bike chain to boot 16mm. Alsoで撮影をしたが背景のビルの直線部分が歪曲せず、空に向かってまっすぐ立っている。超広角レンズではそのレンズ特性から歪曲収差が比較的起こりやすいが、AT-X16-28 F2.8 PRO FXでは各種の非球面レンズがもつパワーを適切に分散。画質の向上を図るのとともに、歪曲収差を良好に補正して被写体の形をきれいに表現することに長けている。あえて16-28mmで焦点距離を設計した理由のひとつがここにあるのだ。Thats on a d3x which i aint getting. Cheers!

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:41:02 +0000

Great news – I did disable the comments while the problem was being fixed. I hope this will be the last time we see this issue. I have taken some more security measures that should prevent something similar to happen in the future.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:35:52 +0000

Was having trouble posting comments before. Seems the name and e-mail thing is fixed though.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:15:35 +0000

I enabled the comments again – let’s see if this is fixed now.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:22:45 +0000

Exactly. If Tamron can build a 28-75 with a 67 mm thread, surely they can build a faster lens of the same focal length with larger construction. Even 2.5 would be significant “on paper”.

By: Jabs

Jabs — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 14:21:50 +0000

A Little OFF-TOPIC but perhaps a reply to complainers here.
Wedding Photographer Allister Freeman switches from Canon 5dMk2 to Nikon D700 and he states why.

Canon 5D Mark 2 versus Nikon D700 – My thoughts
http://www.allisterfreemanphotographyblog.com/

By: alvix

alvix — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:41:24 +0000

considering they used a D3x ..the pics looks very promising as far as distorsions, colors , sharpness etc…

By: Rafael

Rafael — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:37:28 +0000

I’m not Raphael… so the problem is still here…

From the photos it seema that this Tokina has good IQ, but it will be hard to be positioned between the Nikkors 14-24 and 16-35

By: Rafael

Rafael — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:34:41 +0000

Hey Administrator,
This is me (Jabs) now posting as Rafael (second example in a row).
Same problem occurs when you clear COOKIES and reload your Home Page, then click on COMMENTS.

By: Paolo Taverna

Paolo Taverna — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:29:06 +0000

Hey Administrator,
The problem still is there.
I (Jabs) am now posting as this person.
Try the MySQL Injection links I posted.

By: bwhahaha

bwhahaha — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:40:48 +0000

tokina? who cares?!

By: longtimenikonshooter

longtimenikonshooter — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:16:10 +0000

Error still present

By: Mon nez

Mon nez — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:46:32 +0000

Hmm, why did I put a comma after the word “forums”>