< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

New Tokina AT-X 11-16 f/2.8 PRO DX Ⅱ lens announced

Tokina just announced a new version of their popular 11-16mm f/2.8 lens. The new lens will have an aspherical element, new coating for improved performance and a SD-M (Silent Drive-Module) autofocus motor (AF-S equivalent) and US price of $669. You can now use this lens even with Nikon DSLR cameras that don't have an integrated AF motor (D3100, D5100). The Nikon version is expected to start shipping in March, 2012. The old Tokina 11mm-16mm f/2.8 lens currently has a $40 mail-in rebate.

Specs:

Focal length 11 ~ 16mm Filter Size 77mm
Brightness F2.8 Zoom mode Rotating zoom
Minimum aperture F22 Number of aperture blades Nine
Lens Construction 13 images in 11 groups Greatest dimension 84.0mm
Coating Multilayer coating Full-length 89.2mm
Angle of view 104 ° to 82 ° (with Nikon). Weight 550g
Minimum focusing distance 0.3m Accessories Flower-shaped bayonet hood (BH-77A)
Macro maximum magnification 1:11.6
Compatible Mount Nikon digital (APS-C) :4961607-634349Canon digital (APS-C) :4961607-634356

Via Digicame-info

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Paul

    $1000? Are you kidding me Tokina?

    • DannyK

      Seriously…. way too much…

      • Paul

        You cant just convert currencies like that when it comes to camera equipment. The US price will be considerably lower than that

        • humenbean

          Not too sure about that. The first generation was $800 when it first came out years ago. With inflation $1000 might be a tad high, but not unrealistic.

          • Worminator

            That’s not a “retail” price, that’s mis-interpreted. That’s the “list” price given by Tokina. List prices on 3rd party lenses are essentially 2x what they will sell for in most discount shops 3-4 months after release. That’s just the way it is in Japan.

            This lens will sell for about 55,000 yen, perhaps 10% more than what the previous version now sells for.

      • http://www.kirkvagg.com Kirk Vagg

        Yeah it sounds like a lot but the old version of this lens was even worth it. It was such a solid and sharp lens! This was the lens I missed the most after I sold all my DX lenses when I moved to FX.
        I also previously owned the Sigma 10-20 which was good but didn’t come close to the Tokina.
        I now own the absolutely perfect Nikkor 14-24 but I still think about my Tokina from time to time.

        • St.

          I double this.

        • AM

          +1

        • http://www.thejordancollective.com CaryTheLabelGuy [NR]

          I still own my Tokina 11-16mm ƒ/2.8 and still use it on our 2 D7000s. We have the Nikon 14-24mm ƒ2.8G and use it on our D3s. The N14-24 is an amazing lens, but the Tokina is great as well….especially for the price. On DX, there isn’t a better UWA. The Nikon 14-24 is significantly sharper, though….but you knew that already.

          • Mark

            I’m interested, have you tried the Sigma 8-16?
            I am saving for this lens, because it can reach further in the wide range. Still, I am interested in alternatives

            • http://www.thejordancollective.com CaryTheLabelGuy [NR]

              No, I have not. I have no real interest in the Sigma 8-16mm. If somebody wants to send me one to test, I will; beyond that, I have no reason to use or own one.

          • masterjimsu

            I found the Tokina at 16mm on my D700 was very capable. It was difficult to see any improvement at 16mm when I moved to the 14-24. The Tokina actually was a tad sharper at f22 and about the same at f16. (I use smaller apertures in many of my shots to get sunstars on lights). I was partial to the warmer rendition of the Tokina, but it did have more issues with flare. The biggest reason I use the 14-24 now is of course the zoom range of 14-24; plus, at f2.8-8 it is brilliant. If I could not afford the 14-24 I would not hesitate to use the Tokina instead. It is an amazing lens for the price.

            • Zograf

              Likewise, EXACTLY my observations as well. At 16mm and f/2.8 on my D700 tested on a night sky, the Tokina was producing very sharp images of the stars from corner to corner, very low vignetting as well. Later of course I bought the 14-24 Nikkor and sold the Tokina. I highly recommend it for DX users. Also, Tokina could be used as a high quality 16mm wide angle f/2.8 low vignetting lens for FX!!

      • http://sightbliss.com G

        I own the Tokina 11-16mm (old version) and this is one is rated as one of the best lens in this category. Considering the improvements Tokina has added i think the price is fair. I am very happy with the old model so i will personally no buy the new version but if i were to look for wide angle DX lens i would consider this one for sure.

        • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

          DX lenses are not worth the price 90% of the time

          • WoutK89

            So are your comments…

            Just because you are “one of them” doesnt mean DX is so bad.

          • Mark

            FX cameras and lenses are not worth the money 99% of the time

            • Richard_K

              +1000

    • Nava

      That’s the suggested price. Street price will be a lot less than that.

    • bp

      $1000 ?? where? are you kidding me?

      1. It is JPY 90,000; which is for Japanese market.
      2. It is a new lens.
      3. It is MSRP.

      Should be around $700 at the most expensive then.

      • iamlucky13

        The current model is typically $700 USD. An AF-S compatible upgrade will certainly cost more than that, especially at first introduction.

        Well worth it, too, from what I’ve heard about this lens.

    • Steven Georges

      Nikon’s 12-24 DX zoom retails for $1,225 (US) and that’s just for an f4!

    • Nat

      Ummm more like $1160 BEFORE tax.

      Are they out of their minds?

      • http://StevenGeorges.com Steven Georges

        For aspherical glass, silent drive autofocus and f2.8? That’s not a bad price. IF it’s well made and sharp.

        Just because it’s an off-brand lens doesn’t automatically make it a cheap lens.

        • happyshooter

          The announcement is trying to mislead you think there is new optical redesign in new version with “new aspherical glass”. But, it is not: the optical design is the same 11/13 in current and new versions, and there are two aspherical elements and one SD element in current version already.

          http://www.dpreview.com/products/tokina/lenses/tokina_atx_11-16_2p8

          The only differences would be the the “improved” coating and SDM motor. These would make the new version $100-150 more expensive than the current one.

  • Mark J.

    Well Sh!T i was just about to put my Tokina up for sale as i no longer need it. Hopefully this doesn’t hurt my resale price. Was hoping to score $500 for it at least.

    • Adrifter

      Yeah, bad timing indeed. I was planning on selling mine (along with my other DX gear) next month. Hopefully the new one is both expensive and hard to get at first so the price of the old one doesn’t drop like a rock.

      • FX DX

        You are pathetic. Shame on you.

        • Calibrator

          What are you? A commie?

          • FX DX

            Supply and demand – A new version is out, so the old one should drop in price (especially if the new one performs better than the old one at the same price point). How is that being a commie?

            Just because you own one and don’t want to lose money on your asset, doesn’t make it right.

            • dave

              Supply and demand indeed. There was plenty of demand for the first one and little supply. Even though B&H (and Adorama and others) were getting one or two shipments of the original 11-16 a week it still took them over two months to get one for me, and I ordered mine two years after they first started shipping them. I expect they will continue to do well on the used market.

              That aspherical element, though… hmmmmm… I wonder how fast it will focus…

  • Apollo

    uuuuuu, luckily I didn’t buy the previous version of this lens yet! I bet the quality is slightly better than before. The previous version was incredible lens too and full of quality.

  • devariot

    DX?? for @1000????

    • David

      AF-S-DX-Zoom-Nikkor-17-55mm-f/2.8G-IF-ED $1,479.95 Cdn
      AF-S-DX-Zoom-NIKKOR-12-24mm-f/4 G-IF-ED $1,039.95 Cdn (and f/4, not 2.8)
      AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-10-24mm-f/3.5-4.5G-ED $899.95 Cdn (variable, and slower)

      14-24 is currently Nikon’s widest FX, and it’s 2 grand.

    • Richard_K

      Why not?

  • Martin

    I have the mark one of this, and besides the distortion you get with lenses this wide, it’s great when working in small areas like clubs as I do, and takes fantastic landscapes. Doubt I’ll bother upgrading though

    • LeGO

      The current version of this lens is very good when paired with the D7000 and is a very good, and a compact and lighter alternative to bringing my 14-24mm and D700. But I also periodically use it as a 16mm f/2.8 prime on my D700. :-) Other than Zeiss lenses, this is my only non-Nikkor lenses.

      I also use the current version of this lens extensively with the GH2 and NEX-5N where it does yeoman duty. The focus throw is a tad short but works well enough for manual focus. I like that it uses the same 77mm CPL, ND and GND filters I used with my other Nikkor lenses.

      The aspherical element and the new coating sounds like the new version has all the credentials to make what is already an excellent lens even better so I will be looking forward to see how it performs. That it also auto-focuses on my D3100 is an extra bonus.

  • bobby

    i’ll file this one under who cares

    • Rex Lechat

      So why bother posting anything at all?

      • Rob

        Generation ME. He thinks people give a shit what he has to say since he’s grown up with myspace and facebook.

        • CHD

          LOL…
          +1 Rob, well said.

  • Peter

    Great news! Now I can check out craigslist and ebay for the current version, people should be trying to get rid of them for a good price (for me). I’m hoping for a $400-450 price new.

    • Peter

      edit – “now” not “new”

  • Bill Stickers

    Christ, I just bought mine a few weeks ago. That’s my luck right there..

    • CHD

      Bill I remember 4 years ago or so before I used to follow and read any camera rumors I bought a brand new Canon 16-35mm 2.8L. Within a few months they announced the vastly superior v2 of the lens…and I was pissed.

  • Steve Starr

    90,000 Yen is $1,159.16.

    Seriously? A $500 increase?

    • Vlad

      It doesn’t really convert like that. And the current Tokina is actually cheap considering its performance.

  • http://www.cantwellphoto.com Cantwell

    Every time I see Tokina release a new lens I’m thrilled they still exist, and usually disappointed that they’re still struggling to catch up to advances in tech from 6 years ago. I’d hoped VR would be on the horizon. It does not look that way.

    • AC

      VR on a wide angle??

      • NoFunBen

        i love VR but on anything wider then 35mm will not be very helpful.
        but many may still buy a VR version just because they think they should have it.

        i would like vr on a 50mm 1.4 if any one is reading this that makes those choices.

        • Metten

          I consider the VR on my 18-200DX very useful at wide angle. It allows me to make sharp pictures at 1/3th of a second handheld at 18mm. That would not be possible without VR.

          If i’d have an FX camera i would definitely choose the 16-35/4VR over the 14-24/2.8. The aperture is one stop slower but the VR allows for shutterspeeds 3 to 4 stops slower. Very useful indeed :)

          • WoutK89

            Slower shutter speeds at a different type of lens that does include VR, doesnt make an apples to apples comparison considering sharpness and field curvature. The 14-24 is in a different league than the 16-35VR in overall performance. But in the end it is personal preference.

      • Calibrator

        Not everyone operates in daylight only…

        • http://clintdunn.zenfolio.com Clint Dunn

          You’re right Calibrator…I do tonnes of night work…and guess what…I’m not relying on IS/VR to do it, I use a tripod.

    • http://www.jimtoddphoto.com Jim

      I own the 16-35mm w/VR. VR is always off due to massive image degradation. No need for VR on a wide angle.

      • Nikonos

        Jim,

        I own the 16-35 f4 also, but I’ve never noticed an image quality drop with the VR on. Can you explain? At least to educate me?

        Thanks!

  • http://mike.heller.ca/blog Mike

    I thought this was Nikon Rumors…

    • Vlad

      That’s a lens for Nikon mount too.

    • http://kamera-gue.web.id kamera gue

      This is a good news for Nikon owner without focus motor like D3100/D5100

  • spamdie

    Its just like the 12-24 II. Its the same optical performance they just added a motor to it so the Consumer line can use it.

    If anything the new one if priced too high won’t effect the current used prices too much. Like the SB-900 and SB-700 really didn’t make a dent in the older flash prices.

  • mcqal

    I have the old version, which I really like. The old one is a little noisy, so the SD-M (Silent Drive-Module) autofocus motor make this interesting, but I think I keep the old one.

    • http://kinimatosfaira.blogspot.com Chrisss

      +1

      Me too. I’ll keep the old one.

      • John Richardson

        +1

  • Oberture

    Not interested it does not fit to my D4

    • juandiegojr

      Yes, it fits and it’s usable @ 16mm without vigneting in FX.

    • WoutK89

      Your D4 does not have F-mount? :-S

    • Ren Kockwell

      Yes, it does not work with imaginary cameras that you don’t have.

  • Gandalf

    Thom Hogan wrote that for DX it is the lens, that comes close to the 14-24 on FX, so I will be very interested in this lens for my D7000.

    • Merv

      Read Thom’s opinion about the 10-24 f/3.5-5.6 and you’ll notice he preferred his 10-24 by just a little bit:

      http://www.bythom.com/inlieu.htm

      • Gandalf

        Thank you Merv, interesting

      • Gandalf

        Thank you Merv, interesting.

        • Ren Kockwell

          Thank you Merv, interesting.

  • Fernando
  • Fernando

    MSRP for the old version was also 90,000 yen, so is the 12-24 II.

  • Calibrator

    I don’t care for the motor (who steps down, anyway, and there is always good old hyperfocal…) but this here is more interesting to me:
    ” The new lens will have an aspherical element, new coating for improved performance”
    The original 11-16 was always criticized for chromatic aberrations (compared to other wide angle lenses), wasn’t it?

  • http://www.bursafotovideo.ro/ Bursa Foto

    Maybe they will update the soon the 16-50mm f/2.8, with the new SD-M / AF-S.

    • WoutK89

      + the 50-135/2.8 ???

      • http://www.bursafotovideo.ro/ Bursa Foto

        This would be even better!

  • Dogbert

    If you compare the two cut sheets….

    http://www.tokina.co.jp/camera-lenses/wide-lenses/at-x-116-pro-dx-2.html
    http://www.tokina.co.jp/camera-lenses/wide-lenses/at-x-116-pro-dx.html

    MSRP is the same (exchange rate is different)
    MTFs are identical
    Optical design is the same
    the DX II lost 10g (more plastic?)
    the DX II seems to have a different coating for shadow gradiation
    the DX II has an internal focus motor (faster AF?)

    Worth it for a non-screw drive body, but unlikely to have enough coating difference to entice current 11-16mm users to upgrade.

    Dogbert

  • http://brandonburtner.com/ Brandon Burtner

    I bought this lens because of its very positive reviews, and I have to say, I have been very disapointed and hardly ever use this lens. It is a fine lens for still lifes or scapes, but if you have a human subject, the lens is basically unusable. There is significant distorion and at 11mm it is practically a fisheye.

    The lens is very sharp and has great contrast and color reproduction, so I’m definitely not suggesting the lens won’t work for some people, but I’m a wedding photographer. A bride doesn’t want a bunch of her bridesmaids to be curved 20 degrees at the edge of the frame.

    • http://www.photosbygregstrong.com DeathK

      There are specific uses for this lens and venue photography really isn’t one of them.

      I’ve gotten some good use out of mine with landscape and similar shots.

    • anon

      it’s 11mm.. of course it will distort a person if you intend to fill the frame with the person. This is very special purpose lens and should basically never be used for wedding shots unless it’s a very artistic non-traditional shot and the couple knows and wants something like that. If you want to take a landscape with the wedding party far off in the distance and somewhat in the middle of the frame, then they won’t distort (as much). I’ve been very happy with it, but i bought it with intention of doing extreme disproportional shots, not traditional. Stick with 17-5X DX range for more traditional wide to normal shots.

      Sucks… I just bought the old one like 3 weeks ago… oh well. my fiance and i both shoot so maybe i’ll just buy the new one too when it’s available.

    • juandiegojr

      Please do not offence yourself but this is an ultra wide lens and as all the ultra wide lenses has distorsion that can be corrected. And if you do wedding photography you should correct in the processing.

      It can be done easily.

      Wide angle lens are in the technical lens group and are strongly oriented to creativity which in my opinion is a must have in weddings, churchs or group portraits.

      You have a great bunch of good examples using wide lens looking at flickr or other photo sharing websites.

      Regards,

    • http://clintdunn.zenfolio.com Clint Dunn

      Brandon any 11mm lens will distort the heck out of a subject if you use it wrong…..
      Ultra-wides are all about keeping the lens perpendicular to the subject and don’t try to fill the frame with someone, or yeah…nothing but distortion.

  • Κωνσταντίνος

    Great news for D3100 & D5100 owners.

    • http://brandonburtner.com/ Brandon Burtner

      Most D3100 users aren’t going to be buying a lens that cost twice as much as their camera body :-P

      • st r

        I bought a used 70-200mm for three times as much as my D40 (the whole kit, not only the body) :)

  • tabs

    Tax not included with hood

    • st r

      I’ll buy one without hood

  • nathan

    Ah Fudge.. I jsut bought the old one!!

    Which is amazing buy the way :)

    • El_Pickerel

      I bought the 12-24 II when my kit lens broke and I needed wide angle immediately. (Was in Maine hiking for a couple weeks…) Would have bought the 11-16 if one was available, but this may now get me to sell off my 12-24 when it comes out! Really want to see how the new AF motor they use compares to the loud one in the 12-24.

  • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

    Looks like nice glass for the DX crowd. I would like to know more about their f/4 FX ultra wide angle zoom, mainly because it costs about half of what the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR does.

  • http://www.jpgmag.com/people/markwjr Mark

    I’ve owned the previous version since roughly 2 months after its release. I’ve used it extensively, and it is seriously a flawless lens. It has a SLIGHT CA problem, but the incredibly low distortion at any focal length makes up for this tenfold. It’s a brilliant lens, and everyone who knows anything knows that. This one is DEFINITELY worth every bit of the $700-775 they’re going to charge for it. It’s built like a tank, performs like a pro, and isn’t hard on the eyes. It’s a great lens. I wouldn’t go as far as to say pay the $899 they’re going to charge on ebay for the first 6 months after release, but the 700-775 new is a bargain. Buy one. Hell, buy two if you shoot DX. Why not, right?

    I’ll be getting rid of my D300s shortly, probably for the D800, and I will miss this lens the most (of my 3 DX lenses). Seriously awesome. I’m glad they’re adding the motor. It was the only thing missing from the last one.

    Mark

  • MrGabe

    I think I speak for EVERYONE when I say..

    “WHERE IN THE WORLD IS THE D400?!!”

    • Mike M

      No joke, I can’t see Nikon not plugging that huge hole in their lineup but it makes me nervous about buying new DX glass like this.

  • http://eleventhphotograph.com elph

    This brings me to a question I’v been curious about.
    When I put on a regular 50mm lens onto my D70000, it works, it effectively becomes a “75mm”, and remains a 50 on an FX body. What’s the difference between lenses that are specified for either DX or FX though? Why aren’t those inter-compatible?
    Thanks

    • Mike M

      Size of the image circle projected by the lens, IE DX lenses don’t project a “large” enough image to cover an entire FX frame. For shorter focal length lenses you can make the lens much smaller in diameter if you’re only covering the APS-C image sensor, the focal length of the lens doesn’t actually “change” what changes is the usable field of view in degrees, a DX camera only uses part of the image circle projected by the FX size lens but has a high resolution sensor so it pulls out more detail per unit of area (generally) than a given FX camera of similar resolution, which creates essentially a magnified image, with some caveats.

  • amoeba

    Excellent! Want to buy one one day….

    Wish they would change the design….at least the lettering…please replace the font…ugly.

  • Landscape Photo

    How about the FX version (some sort of) of this lens: http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/afl-00.html

    Has anyone here tried it? Can it be a lightweight and even wider alternative to the notorious Nikkor 14-24mm (for landscape & cityscape)?

    • Landscape Photo
      • WoutK89

        sorry to dissappoint you. That 12-24 by Tokina is DX

        • Landscape Photo

          Oh yes, I was really drawn with the Sigma FX one… That 12mm end must be the widest rectilinear ever made while 8mm DX is a fisheye.

          • Calibrator

            Sigma has a rectilinear 8-16 mm DX zoom, too.

          • WoutK89

            8mm DX would equal the Field of View of 12mm on FX. The amount of mm does not immediately make it a fisheye or not.
            From the Sigma website angle of view on DX at 8mm: 114.5 degrees, while the 12mm FX is stated as 122 degrees. Usually a frame filling fisheye is close to 180 degrees.

    • Sly Larive

      Yup, you’ve got it crossed. The 12-24 Tokina is a DX (I’m guessing you’re confusing the II and not II ID from Tamron)

      Anyhow, Tokina has a very well regarded FX 16-28. Not as good as the venerable Nikkor 14-24 but a good chunk cheaper if you search hard enough. :P

  • The Man from Mandrem

    They seem to get $150 more for the 12-24 DX2, so I’d expect this one to price $150-200 higher and the DX1 11-16 to hold it’s price very well. Noone should bemoan recent purchase of the DX1.

  • neversink

    You get what you pay for… Tokina, Sigma, Crapola…. they aren’t worth the so-called bargain prices. They break down. Sigma has some great optics in some of their lenses, but the electronics often fails and you are without autofocus suddenly, when trying to photograph that lion kill in the Serengeti….
    It’s not just happened to me, but to many others. Go look up Sigma autofocus problems or failure or something like that….

    Good luck if you buy one of these lenses!!!!!

    • Ren Kockwell

      Yes, that has been true in the past, but Sigma has actually gotten much better of late with their QC. If you haven’t bought one recently, it may be worth another look. Still agree that on the whole, Nikon QC blows Sigma out of the water, but they’re improving.

    • http://www.josephsands.com jastereo

      While that may be the case with some aftermarket lenses the Tokina’s that are being discussed (specifically their wide angle 11-16 f/2.8′s and their 12-24 f/4′s – as well as their new FX cousins) have always been VERY well regarded on almost all fronts. Usually doing as well or better than their Nikon equivalents in IQ as well as usually having BETTER build quality…for considerably less money. But hey, go and spend 1100$ for a Nikon 12-24 f/4, I could care less. Better yet, go buy one off of craigslist/ebay, they pop up all the time w/ people trying and failing to get 800$ for them because anyone in the know is buying the Tokina 11-16 at retail prices.

      • Chris Zeller

        I sold mine on craigslist for $700 in December, and pocketed $70 on the trade for the Tokina. The Tokina has better build quality and better optics. The only thing I was missing was AFS. I sure wish I would have waited a few months.

        • WoutK89

          But this lens will not have manual override in the AF setting I am afraid.

    • http://clintdunn.zenfolio.com Clint Dunn

      Neversink…I agree with you to a degree…but obviously you have never owned one of the Tokina ATX-Pro lenses. I used to own the 12-24mm f4 ATX-Pro and it was a more solidly built lens than my 17-40mm L series from Canon. You can say what you want about Tokina image quality (in my opinion very good), but the ATX series build quality is on par or better than the Canon/Nikon equivalent. Sigma on the other hand…….

      • neversink

        I am going to test these Tokina lenses for myself. Have not liked their past products, but will be willing to give it a chance. I was very disappointed in the overall quality of Sigma, not so much the optics, but the electronics…. Everyone says they are getting better internally, but once bit……

        I’m not expecting much but will give it a chance…

  • Bwana Gerry

    Hi Fellas, good to see someone asking about the mythical D400. I’m bloody waiting for it so I can ditch my old D200. Anyone out there know something???

  • Reilly Diefenbach

    Just another lens that will fall well short of the Nikon 10-24. Sigma 8-16 is the only competition.

    • Anonymous Maximus

      +1

      10-24mm Nikkor is a better choice than any Tokina. And anything that comes from Sigma, Tamron, etc too.

    • hi im paul

      I rented the 10-24 Nikkor a few times before buying the tokina. The only thing the nikkor has over it is zoom range. I get better contrast and much sharper images with the tokina. I’m generally a nikon snob too :)

      • masterjimsu

        I’d go further and say the Tokina is not “ok” indoors in all conditions. If you have recessed lighting in the ceiling or track lights, you’ll still have the flare problem – Bring a big piece of cardboard to help out. However, I will disagree somewhat and say the minus the flare, the Tokina holds it’s own even against the 14-24 at 16mm on FX. When I used it on DX, is was of course even more useful. And it has a color rendering that is warmer, more Zeiss-like. It also has less loss of sharpness from diffraction at 16mm @ f22 vs the 14-24. I’ve witnessed this on three copies of the 14-24 vs the Tokina. At f16 they were equal, and below f16, the Nikon starts it’s ass-kicking in full force.

    • わからない

      Hmmm…..I shouldn’t feed the troll, but what they hey….

      I have both the Nikon 10-24 and the Tokina 11-16. The Tokina is tougher (The Nikon’s been in the shop for weeks due to focus ring problems + parts shortages), and for what I do the Tokina’s optical qualities are better (blades give better sunstars).

      I think other comparable Nikon lenses are better than the 10-24 at 18-24mm – even the 18-55 is faster, is not IMO worse optically, and has VR, which is useful at 24mm. Thus, I don’t see much added utility for the Nikon’s greater zoom.

      Not that I’m getting rid of the 10-24….

      • masterjimsu

        +1 for the Tokina sunstars. The lens is amazing how it holds sharpness even at f22. This is why when I moved to FX I did not buy Tokina’s 16-28 – they lost the nice sunstars, so I went with Nikon’s 14-24. The Tokina 11-16 served me very well on FX at 16mm until I could buy the 14-24.

  • F

    I heard the sweet spot on this lens is somewhere between 12mm-13mm.. :D

    no but seriously, for anyone who’s owned the previous version, is there any reason why they didn’t just make this an 11mm f2.8, or a 16mm 2.8? Is the 12-13-14-15mm zoom range that necessary? This could have been a less expensive prime lens imo

    • Anonymous Maximus

      10mm or 12mm f/2.8 DX prime. Wow!

      And a little humble 16mm f/4 FX from Nikon please, like in the shape of 20mm f/2.8…

    • John

      Because an 11mm/2.8 or 16mm/2.8 prime would be about he same size, so they just might as well make it a zoom for increased sales appeal. Now an 11/2.8 prime will likely have better IQ, but that’s another issue all together.

  • John

    Wow – I really tried to buy one of these when I had my D300, but the 3 copies I tried had either significant decentering, AF problems, or was just terrible in the corners even stopped down a bit.

    Hopefully with some better QC and new coatings and tweaked optics this new version will be significantly better than the first version. May be enough to get me back into DX (I’ve since switched to a D700 and sold the D300).

    Good for Tokina!

  • http://Les Mike Miller

    Just spoke with someone from Tokina who said that upon releiase, the new 11-16 will probably be priced $100 more than the existing lens, so around $799. After the 0lder version sells out, the price for Version II will likely drop by $100. BTW, he also said that unless you have a D3100, D5100, etc, there should be no significant difference in performance between the old and new 11-16 lenses (although he qualified that by saying that he hasn’t actually seen the new one yet!).

    • WoutK89

      Seems clear they want to clear stock on the old version first!

      • わからない

        Interesting, all this explains why there were some great deals on this lens during the holidays. (I bought a new one from B&H for less than used ones sell for.

        FWIW, there were also lots of incentives for the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 VR equivalent lens. Not only at B&H, but especially in Japan. I was looking for one and saw, at a major camera retailer a few hours before my flight, that lens on sale for the equivalent of US $460. (I almost bought it, except for the fact that the warranty would probably not be covered in the US if it went south, and also because if I got a bad sample I’d be unable to return it).

        So, I wouldn’t be surprised if new versions of this or other non-Nikon lenses appear this year. With all the likely new DSLRs, this would be a good year for them to refresh their lineups.

    • biho

      The MTF of the DX and DXII are the same (based on the Japanese version of the website). It is strange that the English version is outdated and gives less information.

  • http://www.lightdesignphotostudio.com LightDesign

    I own both the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and the 16-28. I missed the UWA when I moved to a D700. I think the 16-28 is just as good as 11-16, if not a little better, a smidgen less wide than Nikon’s 14-24 and comparable in quality for a 1000$ instead of 1600$.

    The rest of my glass is all Nikon FF 2.8 stuff and the 1.4 G primes. The Tokina 16-28 is one of the most underappreciated lenses in the UWA category.

    • Bruce29928

      +1

      Or should that be +2, one for each 11-16 on a D90 and the 16-28 on a D3, both outstanding

  • jake337

    I’m always hoping for tokina to come out with some fast primes…..I love their 100mm f2.8 macro

  • itsok2be

    I generally like Tokina lenses, but I have a hard time seeing where the 11-16 fits in the current range of dx WA lenses. The Sigma 8-16 is reportedly sharper and goes wider, and the Nikon 10-24 has better range. Perhaps if a person did not have any form of WA and wanted one that went to 2.8, but that’s all I can see.

    • Symbol

      For me Tokina’s range is perfect for architectural and interior photo. Sigma 8-16 is too wide, Nikon 10-24 is not so sharp and more expensive. And don’t forget about distorsion, Tokina is almost perfect choise, because all lines on architectural photos are almost straight. And f/2,8 is very useful in dark interiors too.

  • Symbol

    I have 1st version of 11-16 and must say optically it is almost perfect. It’s one of my favourite lens, and I use it very often for interior and architectural photo, as result it gives almost straight lines with no visible distortion.
    BUT! autofocus are disappointing. I HATE it’s inaccurate work. I think it’s because of there is no build-in motor in this lens. I hope af-s motor will be more precise in 2nd version.

  • Masai

    I had the older/current 11-16. Sold it. It ‘s a very over-hyped lens. Chromatic aberrations, at least on my model, which was my third, was just too high for a lens of this price and quality.

    And once you get used to the wide focal length, you yearn for more. Very rarely did I shoot at the 16mm end.

    Replace the Tokina with a Sigma 8-16mm. Has its issues, but what a fabulous and FUN lens. Comes highly recommended by Photozone
    http://www.photozone.de/nikon–nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/625-sigma816f4556dx

  • Ben

    Woohoo! About time–this’ll look goooood on my d5100. But why can’t I get an 11mm DX fixie? My uneducated hunch is that the 1.45x zoom will add less extra utility than cost–in price, complexity, bulk, weight, and holes for contaminants to get in.

    But I’m (hoping to be) new to UWA ownership (probably when this hits the market). Do you UWA owners find you use the full zoom range frequently? Or do you end up with most of your shots at the wide end? Thanks!

    • Mark

      Send a letter to Nikon! You’re not the only one who is missing such a lens.

  • Back to top