Several reviews claim that the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is very comparable to the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. It is also $500 cheaper than the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.

I find myself leaning towards the Tokina. I already have the Nikon 24-85mm VR, so I have 24mm on up covered with VR. I've always lusted after the holy trinity lenses, so the Tokina seems to be closer to one of them. Plus I hear the distortion is lower on the Tokina at wide angles and I do not do almost any post-processing (other than automatic in-camera corrections).

Any other thoughts to consider, oh wise Nikon comrades?

msmoto said:
Actually on full frame an excellent "walk around" as the 35mm end is a "normal lens".

I would second that, strongly. Especially since that is what makes the wide-angle zooms so great: You always have a good "normal lens" on the camera, and then if you need to open up, you just twist the zoom ring. 16mm is quite a crazy angle already.

To someone like me, who has never had a VR lens, VR is a really cool feature, I must say, it does a great job. I really miss the step to a f/2.8 on the 16-35, not shutter-speed wise, but bokeh-wise. Then again, to me this is only relevant at 35mm focal length, so if I had the choice between the 16-28 Tokina and the 16-35 Nikon (which I just had), I'd go for the Nikon.

Still hoping on a 16-35 f/2.8 in the future, though...

I too am wavering between these two lenses. The Tokina has a $100 rebate and can be now had for $850-$100=$750, while the Nikon is $500 more at about $1,250.

Odd, the 16-35mm seems to be out of stock everywhere.

The flare resistance doesn't look that good, about on par with the 20-35mm F2.8D I used to have. Contrast is still very good though. A wide lens like the 16-35mm, with that many lens elements is going to be a recipe for flare no matter what coatings they put on it. I'd be happy if Nikon made a modern compact wide angle zoom like the 20-35mm, but bigger is better seems to be the modern mindset.

About the only thing one can say bad about the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 VR is that it is not an f/2 or f/1.4..... Very sharp, very wide, a beautiful lens. Actually on full frame an excellent "walk around" as the 35mm end is a "normal lens".

The lens flare is definitely more than on the 24mm f/1.4G, but here is a sample with the sun in the corner of the D7000's frame.

Geoff_K said:
My nikon 70-200 VR1 is worth only half (at best) judging from when i checked ebay when i wanted to sell it. there were 6 or 7 of them and nobody was bidding on them, even when they started at $1000. I dont buy lenses in the hope they hold value. I buy them to use them until I am done, or they break. ;- )

DXO comparison of the 2

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/370/(lens2)/373/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Tokina/(brand2)/Nikkor

In this case I honestly don't think DXO's comparison means anything significant. The Nikon 16-35 VR has to ability to achieve fantastic contrasty images, it has an AF motor that never misses. This Tokina is not a bad lens, but if someone has the money for the 16-35vr it's certainly a much better choice imo. Against common belief Nano coating is not a snake oil, it means you are going to have decent contrast even with the sun in the frame, it's not just about improving the lens flare. (this is important in a landscape lens)

kanuck said:
Something to also consider, once you purchase the Tokina, the resale value drops by nearly 60% usually so you are pretty much stuck with your purchase. The Nikkor on the other hand is one of the sharpest zooms especially on the more recent bodies. The distortion can be bad at the 16-18 end but it is easily fixed in Photoshop. Its much more pricier than the Tokina, but worth it. Is it possible to trade in your 12-24mm DX lens for it?

My nikon 70-200 VR1 is worth only half (at best) judging from when i checked ebay when i wanted to sell it. there were 6 or 7 of them and nobody was bidding on them, even when they started at $1000. I dont buy lenses in the hope they hold value. I buy them to use them until I am done, or they break. ;- )

DXO comparison of the 2

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/370/(lens2)/373/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Tokina/(brand2)/Nikkor

At half the price, the Tokina has something going for it. A couple reviews I ran across had good things to say about it.

I'd probably save the $$ and get the Tokina unless you really wanted more than 28 on the long end.

The 20mm f/2.8 wide open in horrid lighting conditions, ISO 2000 on a D90

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7848264202/sizes/o/in/set-72157631216472282/

Works well.

I am considering the Nikon AF D 20/2.8 as well. It seems s great value for money. Rather old, but it still gets great reviews. Anyone any experience with it?

20 mm should be enough for Ultrawide and together with the 50mm I am set for street/urbanlife and architecture. Might add a 85 1.8 later on..

Something to also consider, once you purchase the Tokina, the resale value drops by nearly 60% usually so you are pretty much stuck with your purchase. The Nikkor on the other hand is one of the sharpest zooms especially on the more recent bodies. The distortion can be bad at the 16-18 end but it is easily fixed in Photoshop. Its much more pricier than the Tokina, but worth it. Is it possible to trade in your 12-24mm DX lens for it?

I use the 16-35 f/4 mostly for real estate and I actually just shot a video tour using only that lens on a D800. The VR is useful in low light or slow shutter. I also have a 24-70 f/2.8 as well but it's not wide enough and without VR it can't be handheld at slow shutter speeds without blur.

Video shot using the Nikon 16-35 f/4 with D800
http://youtu.be/HFRHhbbL2mg

https://vimeo.com/51845167

I will get my D600 tomorrow. For now only with a 50mm 1.8G. In the upcoming days/weeks I will test the 16-35 and maybe the Tokina as well. In the end it comes down to personal taste.

Thanks für all the answers!

I bought the 16-35VR over the Tokina -- which I seriously considered because of cheaper price. In fact I posted forum topic here. I can't think of a situation where the Tokina would be used where the Nikon cannot, except at 16mm because distortion is much worse on the Nikon. The Tokina is supposed to be wonderful, though. It comes down to how much landscape work you do and how valuable the use of normal filters are for you. You can find excellent used prices on the 16-35 (I bought for $975 used in excellent condition).

For myself I would get the Nikon...VR makes a lens so much more hand holdable and I don't find a fast lens in this range to be as helpful as VR.

Really depends on if you need the shutter speeds or not. The F2.8 will help slightly in getting lower shutter speeds, but I don't really think it is enough difference to give up VR.

I really liked my Tokina 12-24 F4, but I think Nikon shines when you shoot in hard conditions. Tokina was fine most of the time, but it did ghost, and CA was apparent every so often. Shooting in similar situations the Nikon I would shoot next to my Tokina never had the same problems...IE Nikon coatings and stuff work better IMO.

Drengist said:

And distortion is not a big deal when you shoot landscape, but when you shoot architecture, city, people.

The "lens correction" in Lightroom 4, may not be quite as good as a PC Nikkor, but once you get the hang on of it , it is pretty good

distortion of people at the edge of an ultra wide shot is always going to be challenging

if you are using LR to correct vertical or horizontal distortion, do shoot "wide" as some of the image will be lost

but even that can be put back with intelligent fill in CS5

the correction in CS6 is even better

The more I read, the more confused I get.

In several reviews the Tokina is getting great results.

http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/lenses/fx/tokina-at-x-16-28mm-f-2.8-pro-fx-lens#In_Summary

The distortion seems to be much less of an issue compared to the Nikon 15-36.

And distortion is not a big deal when you shoot landscape, but when you shoot architecture, city, people.

Choosing a lense was and will always be very, very difficult. ;)

I also use the 16-35 VR, and it is a great lens. Having the VR with ultrawide - wide angle is really helpful for handholding at slow shutter speeds. With trial and error, I can get 1 second shots handheld.

I also have the 20mm f/2.8D and do enjoy that lens too... it is tiny and lightweight, and that is nice for a quick hike when I don't want to stow bulky zooms or want to fit everything in my little camera bag.

Thanks for all the answers and advice.

I will use the 16-35 mainly indoors or for architecture/city shots. Indoors (churches, stations, old ruined factories or the tube) I cannot use a tripod very often. Seems the VR will help to shoot freehand.

Concerning the Tokina: I have used a Tokina 11-16 2.8 for a long time and I have to say: Awesome lense on a crop body. The 2.8 helped a lot to shoot in dim light situations.

Therefor I thought of trying the Tokina 16-28 2.8. But I love the the extra mm of the Nikon. It might even serve a general walkaround lense (with a 50mm 1.4 as backup).

Anyone compared the two lenses?

BenH said:
Has anyone ever shot a wide angle picture that required shallow bokeh? (This isn't a troll question... I'm really asking.) I mean the point of the wide angle lens is so you can include the background/surroundings along with the subject, right? Or is there something I'm missing?

Yes and it is not easy. Portraiture can be problematic as UWA will distort the subject but it can be done. You have to be really close, line up the subject just right, and the background really far away to achieve it. Most stuff I have seen that looks like a UWA took the image is really a 50mm cropped with much care given to the background or photoshopped images.

Here, BenH...

Larger: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8051452223/in/photostream/lightbox/

28mm f/2.0 Zeiss Distagon T at f/2.0, 1/100 sec, ISO 2000 on a D4.

The art of portraits with wide lenses is IMO to have a "setting" yet isolate the subject via shallow DOF.

Has anyone ever shot a wide angle picture that required shallow bokeh? (This isn't a troll question... I'm really asking.) I mean the point of the wide angle lens is so you can include the background/surroundings along with the subject, right? Or is there something I'm missing?

The choice between f/4 VR and 2.8 comes down to shutter speed. If you need the fastest shutter speed to freeze action then go with the 2.8. Restated; If you NEED to shoot at 1/60 or faster ALL of the time because of fast moving subjects and have to have the lowest ISO for work, then a 2.8 should be a choice. If not, I say go with VR.

With either lens, because of the wide angle and FX, you should be able to handhold it to 1/20th with ease.

I have the 16-35 f/4. It's a good lens but was better on DX bodies than FX.

To answer your question - the VR is worth at least 3 stops - much better than the 1 stop difference between f/4 and f/2.8. Unless you truly need a shallow depth of field, I'd choose the 16-35 with VR.

The disadvantage of the 16-35 is soft corners on FX bodies. This is normal for ultrawides, but certainly noticeable if you look closely. Center optics are excellent. You might also get vignetting at the widest aperture with a Cokin P-Holder - even the single slot wide angle holder.

I have a friend who has compared the 16-35 with the 17-35. The 16-35 is an upgrade and better optically - plus it has VR. You're not talking about huge differences, but buying new the 16-35 is a bit better.

I chose the 16-35 over the 14-24 because it accepts filters. I shoot a lot of streams and need either a CP or Vari-N-Duo. I also chose it over the 17-35 because of the VR. I shoot on the water where a tripod is of little use, and VR works very well. It also works well in situations where tripods are prohibited.