< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Deal of the day: Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 lens for $599

Tokina-AT-X-116-PRO-DX-II-lens-sale

Today's deal is on the Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 lens for Nikon mount: $599 ($70 off, original price: $669). One of the rebates on this deal will expire on July 10th, 2013.

This entry was posted in Nikon Deals, Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • n11

    How would the distortion/quality of an 11mm DX lens compare to a 16mm on a FF? In terms of quality and distortion?

    • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

      Go check reviews for yourself.

    • Spy Black

      Distortion is typical for wide-angles, quality overall is great.

  • Larrry

    And with the paultry 5mm zoom range why not a Nikon 20mm prime for the same price, or the Zeiss 18mm for double the price? 5mm is so short, you can zoom with your feet in most situations. Obviously, that is shooting FF, not DX.

    • http://loewald.com/ Tonio Loewald

      Obviously the 16mm is wider than a 20mm, and there are no DX primes at these focal lengths. This is an excellent lens (I have one) but I do agree about the narrow zoom range. On reflection, I think I would have been happier with the Nikon 10-24mm not so much because of the slightly wider wide-end, but because 24mm (36mm equivalent) is a useful focal length for normal photography. The 11-16 essentially functions as a super-wide prime with extra flexibility, and in practice it’s only ever on my camera for a few minutes at a time.

      • Larrry

        I also toyed with it but due to the shallow range opted for the Sigma 10-20. It is my go to lens for real estate shoots and I find when reviewing the shoot, actual range used tends to be 14-18, with the occasional 10 or 12, and generally shot at f8 with off-camera lighting. Currently considering the D800, and the obvious lens of choice would be the 14-24, or the 16-36. But then there is the side of me that says…go prime. May try doing a shoot taping the Sigma fixed at 15 just to see how could adapt to the FF 20mm.

        • Rex

          Too funny. Larry initially complains about the Tokina’s “paltry 5mm zoom range”, but then subsequently says he shoots his Sigma 10-20 mostly at 14-18, which is an even more paltry FOUR mm zoom range. Also, he states “…you can zoom with your feet in most situations. Obviously, that is shooting FF, not DX”, True, 11-16 on FF would be pointless, but this is a DX lens, so reference to how the zoom range would work on FF is irrelevant.

          I have this lens, and I like it. Yes, the zoom range is narrow in numeric terms, but it’s actually substantial when you consider you’re getting the angle of view range equivalent to 16-24 on FF. It was way cheaper than any Nikon equivalent when I got it, and I like the ability to use it at f/2.8. Lastly, judging by the reviews I’ve read about the Nikon 20mm f/2.8, it sounds like the Tokina is the better option.

  • LobsterHat

    I have this lens and it is probably my favorite. Great image quality and superb build quality. It is metal unlike most other DX lenses you will find out there. I wish it had been this cheap when I bought it.

  • http://www.flickr.com/jaybie Jay Donahue

    I had used the Nikon 12-24 years ago at my old job and loved it. When I left that job I no longer had access to the lens and figured the 10-24 would be a step up, the variable aperture in this case not being a big deal.

    So I got a Nikon 10-24. While the contrast and color of the 10-24 were always really solid, I felt like the distortion was worse, even with auto distortion control on. I was never really wowed by the images.

    I ended up getting this Tokina 11-16 DX II (with the focus motor) and doing side-by-side comparisons with the Nikon 10-24 at the focal lengths and apertures they had in common. My copy of the Tokina was shaper for every possible combination. So I kept the Tokina because sharpness is really important to me.

    I do miss the range of the 10-24 though. If I wasn’t shooting at 10mm I was shooting at 24mm…

  • Back to top