< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

The new Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II lens is now shipping

The new Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 PRO DX Ⅱ lens (Nikon mount) that was announced in January is now shipping. For in-stock status check Amazon and B&H. The improvements in the new version of the lens are:

  • Aspherical element
  • New coating for improved performance
  • SD-M (Silent Drive-Module) autofocus motor
  • Faster AF
This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • n/a

    a little on the pricey side, but interesting

  • Jabs

    You need a D400 to attach to this!

    • PAG

      Damn! Only the 2nd comment and you still beat me to it.

    • Anonymous Maximus

      Due to its size & filter advantage, a D800 user may also prefer this lens instead of 14-24mm FX, if ultra WA is not of mainstream usage. 15mp is plenty enough. And some DX lenses have much larger usable image circle than DX crop at the longer end.

      • bert

        But how do you fool the camera into not cropping the image?

        • umesh

          For D800 and D4 you can force fx size for dx lens. Or use 1.2 magnification instead of 1.5 . Don’t know if it is possible for older cams. I have used this feature successfully with my dx 12-24. I got about fx 16mm equivalent of usable image area. Depending upon lens you may get mild or severe corner vignetting though.

          • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com bob cooley

            2 quick notes:

            1) just to clarify (for those who still don’t understand the difference)* The 1.5 is a field of view or crop equivalent, not a ‘magnification’ change (e.g. a 200mm lens on a DX will give you a 300mm crop, but not get you zoomed in any closer to the subject).

            2) Using a FX lens in DX mode or on a DX body should actually give you LESS distortion or vignetting, as you are using only the center part of the lens (you also get a depth of field increase in DX mode or on a DX body from the smaller image size to optics ratio).

            *note: umesh, the clarification is not aimed at you, I think you understand the difference. Unfortunately there is still a lot of confusion between the field of view vs. magnification benefit for new-comers.

            • Calibrator

              What you write is correct but pixel size also plays a role here:
              If you have a 12MP FX and a 12MP DX body then effect will be that the DX body will “magnify” the image as it spends more pixel for the cropped image area.

              Now, the D800 with its 36MP is nearly the same as a D7000 with 16MP.

              However, with the 24MP DX bodies (the D3200 being only the first one) the old effect of “pixel zoom” again comes into play.

            • Martijn

              amen! one thing, a guy walked up to me he had a 17-55 f2.8 nikkor (full frame lens). He couldn’t get a wide enough shot, so i borrowed him my sigma 10-20mm DX lens (yes, i thought about running away, since he walked off VERY far. I hoped he wouldn’t come back.)

              he came back, and said the difference was very small since his lens was FX and mine was DX.

              what i didn’t get though, he had a D300s… so thats a DX camera… doesnt that mean the field of view of a 17 fx lens is the same as a 17mm dx?

              i was quite sure but now i’m starting to doubt. I should see the same through my 17-50mm Tamron DX as he sees through his 17-55 nikkor FX right? at least if both body’s are DX

            • Matty

              The Nikkor 17-55 is DX, and is in many ways very similar to your Tamron. The Nikkor 17-30 is an FX wide angle zoom. If he was using a full frame camera and this lens your story would make sense (the wide end looking similar to your DX wide angle), but with a D300 both the 17-35 and 17-55 would look the same (but your wide angle DX would look much wider.

            • Shawn

              Martijn,

              I think that guy was misinformed. All lenses are expressed in physical terms of actual (probably approximate, but really darn close) length in millimeters. A 50mm lens is still 50mm in length whether it was made for FX, DX, or m4/3.

              The only thing the body changes is angle of view.

            • Martijn

              i already thought he was full of balony. good to know i wasn’t an idiot.
              guess he couldn’t tell the zoom ring from the focus ring XD

            • happysnapper63

              The first part is complete tosh.

              When you use a 300mm lens it creates a bigger image and you apply your mp count to a smaller area of the target scene. When you use a DX camera with a 200mm lens (assuming the FX and DX have the same mp count) you get exactly the same.

              Correct, the physical focal length of the lens does not change. But the only the thing that matters is the number of MPs recording the information about a selected proportion of the whole target scene.

              Hopefully this is the last time this will have to be explained to folks like you. Geez.

      • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com bob cooley

        Doubtful. If you are a D800 shooter, which is really tuned more towards nature and very large image shooters, you probably have (or covet) the 14-24mm already – because the combination of the two is amazing for landscape, exteriors and interiors work. I wouldn’t drop another $800 to have a lens that is going to force me into DX mode.

        If I wanted to shoot DX , I wouldn’t have bought the D800 and the 14-24 in the first place.

  • Maverick14

    Maybe now they’ll finally get onto their 70-200 f/4 lens! Tokina annouced it back at the start of the year and nothing has been seen since.

    • WildlifeShooter

      Amen!

  • Brock Kentwell

    Is this made in Japan or is it from red China?

    • hi

      Hi cock asswel, it is from red Japan :)

    • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com bob cooley

      I’ve got news for you – Nikon uses China for many parts. Even the D4 and D800 have a lot of components made at Nikon China.

      So does Apple, Dell, Asus, etc. etc. So are a lot of the clothes you wear.

      Sadly, It’s almost impossible to avoid these days.

      • Abraham Collins

        It’s not almost impossible; it’s just highly uneconomical.

  • Dead End

    At least Tokina seems to be committed to DX. Don’t think Nikon is any more.

    It seems a long time ago that Nikon was telling us that we did not need full frame digital! Mind you that was when all Nikon had was DX.

    Now the crop format is a liability.

  • spamdie

    Its just an update to see if they can get their motors to work with Nikon’s autofocus system. Like the 12-24 update. They’re just trying to expand to the consumer market to camera that don’t have a screw drive motor.

    However i’ve yet to see how a 12-24 with motor lens performs or any reviews on that version of the lens.

    • http://www.cezarignat.com Cezar Ignat

      12-24 with motor is a great lens! It is my main lens and it does it’s job with landscapes perfectly! You can check the images on my website, all of them are made with the 12-24. Although make no mistake, it is a bit softer than the 11-16.

  • Mamu line clear

    Brock Kentwell. it’s from Green Japan

    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/shigzeo/ shigzeo

      I know you’ve made a joke, but it struck me: and I just had to respond. There is NO such thing as green in Japan. Maybe their recycling habits, but that is it. None of the recycling is done as is done in Sweden/Germany where items are sterilised and returned for product; it is all smashed, remade, and put through 100% industry lines. Waste on every single front. Packages of plastic and cardboard and metal on everything, no one every carrying shopping bags, even small purchases like chocolate needs plastic tape at minimum, most people ask for bags…

      nothing is green in this country, no matter how much Japan lies to international media about it.

      • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com bob cooley

        Sounds a bit like the US…

      • Shawn

        This is just as OT as red, green, or purple countries.

        I find it interesting what you said about reusable shopping bag use in Japan. I don’t want to debate the environmental impact of using reusable shopping bags here, but I want to relate an interesting story of what I saw happen in the US.

        My wife began purchasing reusable shopping bags when they were just coming back in style (they seem to go in and out of style over decades). A lot of older family members would roll their eyes and poke fun at us for using them. I explained one simple thing to them: that they are easier to use than plastic or paper because you can carry a lot more stuff far more securely.

        After that I see everyone in our family now brings their own bags.

        • Kent

          As for environmental impact, we get given free reusable shopping bags instead of ‘better quality’ plastic bags now at some shops. Instead of having 10 plastic bags a week that we reuse as rubbish bags, we now have 10 reusable shopping bags which go straight into the recycling bin.
          I feel bad, but I don’t need 50 reusable shopping bags, no matter if they vary in size by an inch or two.

          • BartyL

            Any particular reason you’re not re-using the re-usable bags? If you did that, you could just keep it down to 10 and replace as needed.

  • EvanK

    Hmm… I think I’ll hold off for now. It carries quite a hefty price tag, and with the D600 on the horizon, a new DX lens may not be the best choice right now.

  • jerl

    Before people get too excited about replacing their existing 11-16’s with this one, have a look at the old lens diagram and the new one: they are exactly the same, so the optical performance should be the same as well. Note that they only say “aspherical element” and not “a new aspherical element” (the old one had the same number of aspherical elements of course).

    • soap

      The optical formula didn’t change during the 12-24 revision either, did it? And by all accounts the second gen smoked the first on flare prevention.

      • Abraham Collins

        Flare reduction is usually attributed to the lens’ coating as far as I know, not the number of aspherical elements.

        • soap

          My point. GPP was talking about the formula as is the largest problem with the 11-16 was somehow related to the formula.

          • soap

            *as if

    • John Richardson

      The old one I have is rocking’, no need to update at all. One of the nicest pieces of glass Tokina makes.

      • Chris

        Exactly. The best part about this lens is driving down the price of the current one. Well, the best thing for those looking to buy anyway.

      • nuno santacana

        The old version has a lot of coma aberration. With the new aspheric element I hope it has been corrected.

        • Dud

          The new is only about motor for low end Nikons.
          The Canon one is identical except for the badge.

        • John Richardson

          There was a problem around their first production runs, but in the version I picked up last year has very very low CA that can be fixed with a slider or button in PP. Not even an issue, but enough for some people to have Tokina do an update I guess.

  • NRC

    Now if they’d just update their US site, we could actually learn about their lenses – it hasn’t been updated in a year or so and is missing their three latest lenses.

  • Should Be Great!

    The original was a stellar performer, so this one will doubtfully disappoint.

  • Spy Black

    Is AT-X 116 PRO DX-II the actual name of the lens, or is that just a NR typo?

    • WoutK89

      Google Tokina lenses and you will find their website. On their website you can find that it is not a typo: 11-16 Tokina lens page

  • http://www.minhtang.com minh

    Does anybody know if there is an good FX wide angle lens like the Nikon 14-24? The Nikon is too expensive, any alternatives out there?

    • iamlucky13

      The 16-35 F/4 is the obvious first option to look at. Not quite as wide or fast, but 16mm is still really wide, and it looks like a generally good performer at a little over half the price.

      If you only need really wide instead of super wide, and don’t need a zoom, there’s the 20mm F/2.8.

      There’s also a Tokina 17-35 F/4 for relatively cheap ($700), and directly comparable to this DX lens, there is a Tokina 16-28 F/2.8 that goes under $1000, and reviews say is a bit soft in the corners but a pretty good overall performer for the price except consistency between lenses is apparently low.

      Lastly, on the bottom end of the spectrum is the unexpected Rokinon/Samyang 14mm F/2.8. Less than $500 and extremely sharp, but heavy distortion, bad vignetting, it doesn’t give proper EXIF data to the camera, and it’s manual focus.

      • soap

        All true but, to be fair, at 14mm lack of AF is not much of a minus at all.

      • BartyL

        I have the Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It is indeed extremely sharp, right across the frame at all apertures. The distortion is definitely there, but I created a lens correction profile for it and have Lightroom set to automatically apply that amongst other things on importing, so I never notice either the distortion or the vignetting. I have the AE version which is chipped for Nikon, so EXIF data is all there, and I can control the aperture using the front command dial in Aperture Priority.

        For the money, and with a bit of work on my part, this is a very good lens.

      • onan

        the AF-S 17-35 2.8D

  • Jabs

    Off Topic – sorry!

    New XQD 2.0 updated Standard

    http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/25/compactflash-association-develops-xqd-2-0/

    WOW – from fast to insanely fast. Real progress too.

  • kin Notwell

    assspherical sounds like a weight problem ?

  • Landscape Photo

    Why can’t Nikon make a filter-taking 16mm f/2.8 rectilinear prime?

    • plug

      Yes. Why are there so few new quality ultrawide primes? 14,16,18 or whatever, perhaps 10 or 12 for DX.

  • Mike

    Wow, it’s not expensive!!

    Now here’s hoping they will now get to work on a VR update of their excellent 50-135 f/2.8!!

    • John Richardson

      Yeah, that would be cool. I like that lens but it is a bit heavy, so I sorta use it a lot on a tripod.

  • http://www.martijnbouius.nl Martijn

    i’m just hoping it will drive the price down on the old one. now have a sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 but would love to have this one!

  • Focus on the facts

    What no one gonna mention D800 focus issues?!

    I’m SHOCKED!

    • http://dmelbihess@gmail.com Serious D800 shooter

      When I shoot all my big shot contracts I always have a left focus issue. I mean come on? I’m a professional!! I shoot at Hard Rock during “local bands night”. I’m all up in Model Mayhem bro so I know I’m a pro. Oh you didnt get to pay that skanky Suicide Girl 75 bux to take tacky pictures of her posing in front of Graffiti? Too bad your not a pro like me. Because that’s what I did this summer. But I digress. Why is my camera having focus issues? I mean come on Nikon! Get it together. Why cant I shoot landscapes @ f1.4 all the time? I pay for this f1.4 glass right? I should be able to use it at all times! I mean how else am I gonna get all that beautiful Bokeh on that mountain. I cant believe Nikon released such a piece of crap. And for some reason my D800 isnt shooting at full resolution with this lens. Clearly its a Nikon fail product. They dont care about their pros. Thats it! I switching to a Fuji X-Pro1 and become a Reportage style Wedding/fashion Photographer. I wont really have any focal point in my photos. Ill just shoot from the hip and take snap shots like Jurgen Teller. Ill get really famous because I know this rich kid with a handlebar mustache. Were so fucking cool.

      • Focus on the facts

        FINALLY!

        ;)

  • Mike M

    I’d imagine the price will come down a little, some day… If it sells like the 11-16 I it may be a while before they need to consider that. Does make me glad I dropped the 500 bucks on a used ver I and have had it for months. Ken Rockwell has to be taken with a grain of salt, but his “buy now and make images now” theory has some merit. This lens is supposed to add a motor and reduce CA, but with my D300 that isn’t really an issue anyways, the BIM would be nice for future compatibility and/or resale but I’ll take my chances.

  • Arthur

    I have the first 11-16 which works from 15mm on a D700 without annoying vignetting. Very sharp and I got it for $460 back then!

  • d800

    this lens won’t work on a D800. well it will, but the left side will be blury.

    • Fix it or forget it

      Use the center AF point if you refuse to get the AF fixed.

    • Bro!

      The left side will be dark bro.

  • neversink

    Who Cares????

    • AM

      You care. You took the time to read the post and write not only one but two comments.

  • neversink

    Wow.. This is a PRO lens. How do I know? Because Tokina has put the word “Pro” in the name of the lens. WOW!!!!! I am so impressed.

    What a bunch of marketing hype!!!!!

    • prophotographer

      Sort of like how you are a pro because you tell girls you try to pick up that you’re a pro photographer.. wow so cool

      • neversink

        been doing this all my life buddy. Don’t need to pick up girls. I am married to the most beautiful, brilliant and gentle woman. But anyone who tries to put someone down on a web blog like this, should take a good look in the mirror. G’day sir.

        • Basket

          You were born with a camera in your hand? Lol

          Why do you need to bash Tokina? Not good enough for you?

      • http://www.dungbeetle.com.au/ Serious D800 shooter

        LOL! Yeah, like pro photographers need to try to pick up girls. We have to beat if off if anything. Let me put it this way. I got more Clam than Ivar Haglund. Or let me crop a name here… Like my homie Moose told Ken. “Steve Mecurry’s swag brings all the Afghan Girls to the yard”. And Ken said. “Believe that! Domino muthafucka, pass the blunt”

  • Vito

    Had the previous one and now the Nikon 10-24. However, I encounter problems of under-exposure with the Nikon circular polarizer II during sunny weather very often. Anyone else with this problem?

    • neversink

      @Vito

      Don’t use a polarizing filter on a wide angle lens. The angle of a subject relative to the sun is one major factor how the polarizing filter will work. The polarizing filters effect will be maximized when you turn your camera from the sun by 90 degrees. On the other hand, when you turn your camera directly toward the sun or 180 degrees opposite the sun you will experience a minimal effect from the polarizing filter.

      So, when you use an ultra-wide angle lends, part of your image in the viewfinder may be framed toward the sun and part of the same image may be framed 90 degrees away from the sun. This will give you a very uneven effect, which in most cases does not have the desired effect that you want from the polarizing filter.

      Good luck….

    • EAJ

      Using a polarizing filter on a wide angle lens will give you a graded effect across the sky – this can be interesting or distracting. Polarizing filters on wide lenses in skyless scenes can be a valuable tool.

      Regarding your problem with underexposure, were you using a linear or a circular polarizing filter? It’s my understanding that using a linear polarizing filter on most modern cameras will predictably result in underexposure.

      • Vito

        thanks for your reply.
        I’m using a circular original Nikon polarizer II which is the slim version made for wide angle lenses in order not to vignet.
        I know the “problem” of uneven dark skies. But in my shots this occurs very seldom. My problem is, that during bright sunshine the entire frame is often under exposed by 1 or 2 stops. The effect -at least for me- is not predictable by looking at the scene. Thus a general correction by 1 or 2 stops is not a save way to get the shot right. So far I help myself with bracketing, but I was curious if there is a better way or helpful experiences.
        This effect BTW does not occur during overcast or in scenes with lower light. The body’s measurement works fine with all lenses without polarizer.

  • Anonymous Maximus

    I have an anology; FX is like diesel truck and DX is like petrol car.

    • Dense

      Care to elaborate?

      • Anonymous Maximus

        FX is more capable, but it’s bigger & needs careful “steering” . DX is the easier & more casual way to go, while having limitations.

        • Dense

          You could go any direction with that analogy, like maybe FX is big, heavy, and too slow and DX is quick, agile, and efficient (I’m not saying any of those are true, just it’s a very broad likeness).

          It’s all a matter of perspective. For me FX has just as many limitations as DX, they are just different ones.

  • Samir

    Hey all, I have a question for you. I own a Nikon 10-24 DX lens which is only f3.5-4.5 which I love for photos. I typically use to shoot only wide angle shots of home interiors. However I have read many places that people love to shoot wide angle and video with the original Tokina 11-16, f2.8. My question is if there is no need to go down to the 2.8 (because I typically want everything in the shot in focus) is there any benefit to purchasing a Tokina? Between the two lenses which would have the better clarity/sharpness? Also specifically for video and at widest setting which would you all expect would be a better choice?

    • FX DX

      11-16 is a very limited range. I had this lens but ended up selling it when I switched to FX. 10-24 is probably a better overall lens for non-professionals.

    • Anonymous Maximus

      I own that lens, it gives good results between f/5.6 to f/11. It’s a very contrasty lens. Once I bought it for D300 and now have quite satisfactory results even on my D700 !

      On FX, 10mm has a slightly larger image circle than DX, which is about 9mm. It is sharp corner-to-corner if stopped down to f/8.

      It starts to cover FX frame @ 15mm but vignetting is strong, 1.2x crop will be better.

      @ 18mm, a usable full FX is possible. Yet, in contrast to expectation, it has less vignetting when wide-open compared to stopping down (on FX).

      @ 24mm it behaves as if designed for FX.

      Btw, why can’t they make a non-fisheye 16mm FX prime that can take a filter? Life would be much easier with such a Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron or Tokina…

    • Arthur

      Why change if you love yours? Difference between 2.8 and 3.5 isn’t that big and with the Nikon you have your 24mm at the end. Chech out what mm you use the most. If it;s more than 16mm most of the time don’t change. ;)

  • David G.

    Wrong website, buddy.

  • http://qlakk.wordpress.com Qlakk

    I have been using this lens for more than a year. The improvements or this new release look great to me. I really like this “zoom”. I have the following issues with it though: the AF was very noisy, apparently this is fixed, good. But no VR is really a problem as you often shoot still scenes with an ultra-wide angle and a good VR can really improve your lens by 3 EV. Last and not least, the lens-hood was not very solid – I broke it quickly. It is sad because otherwise the zoom is pretty solid. I am using it for outdoors sports pictures and it is still alive. So a great ultra-wide angle zoom for DX, very sharp, solid and not too expensive but with still some defaults. Nothing is perfect on this world :)

  • jon

    I just ordered one pre-order from B&H mostly for using with Sony F3 video camera which has the “DX” size sensor. I might also try it for video in crop mode on my D4 since that is what gives the best video images.

  • Trololol

    tl;dr

  • PM1_Photo

    It would be interesting if Tokina developed a DLSR body….

    • PM1_Photo

      oops- typo. Make that a DSLR body…

  • http://www.adammullinsphotography.com Adam Mullins

    I LOVE this lens. I got it last week from Amazon and used it today at a wedding. It is very sharp and a very welcomed addition to my bag. Here is my full review
    http://adammullinsphoto.blogspot.com/

  • Back to top