New Tokina SD 14-20mm f/2 IF DX lens for APS-C cameras leaked online

Tokina SD 14-20mm f:2 IF DX lens
The French magazine Focus Numérique published a picture of a new Tokina SD 14-20mm f/2 IF DX lens designed for APS-C based cameras. I do not remember seeing anything online about such lens - it will probably be a replacement for the current Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 PRO DX (pictured below for comparison) and will be announced during the CP+ show in February 2016:

Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f:2.8 PRO DX lens

Thanks for the tip Vincent!

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • I can imagine this being extremely popular for astrophotography.

    So what’s the next ultralight zoom? Tamron 50-100mm f/2?

    • peevee

      Probably too much coma for that.

    • David Peterson

      An APS-C 50-100mm f/2 would be a great pairing with a Sigma 18-35mmm f/1.8!! 😀

  • Eric Calabros

    Fast but very short range, again. is it a new trend in lens industry?

    • fanboy fagz

      Its always been. No mfr has made a lens with 3x+ zoom range that permorms very well. 2x is the limit imo. Thats the compromise. Flexibility vs performance. And weight and size as all the best zoom lenses have gotten much bigger and heavier and uwa have bulbous fronts to allow better corner to corner sharpness abd less distortion. The sigma 24-35 f2 art is a zoom lens with better performance than nikons primes. Check out nasims review.

      • Aldo

        Sigma is really leading the ‘cheap’ lenses gone pro revolution it seems. I will buy their 85mm 1.4 art when it comes out.

        • fanboy fagz

          yes that will be a day to celebrate. bring it at $1000 price tag and life is great.

          I would love a 50-85 f/2 zoom to go with the 24-35 art. those two can do an excellent job for weddings. an UWA as well like the tamron 15-30 VC and a 70-200 will be the fantastic 4 for weddings.

          but something special about an 85 1.4 lens. the current sigma is a great performer, but not stellar. lets hope 2016 has more art lenses.

    • It’s a short range for sure, but remember that it’s DX so that range is 50% more than what we might customarily think. 21-30mm.

      • Eric Calabros

        It’s from Nikon lens simulator
        Maybe for wide shooters its huge difference.

        • Yeah, it’s not a lot, especially with that kind of shot. The value of the shortest f/l is when you shoot low. I do a fair amount of interior architecture and real estate and find myself literally backed into a corner. I use a 10-20MM Sigma on a D300s and I end up at 10mm a lot.

    • Aldo

      I spotted this new trend… I call these lenses ‘prime’ zooms. They are zooms that wannabe primes and vice versa. I think they are a hit.

      • BrainBeat

        Agreed this would seem to be what is happening and I think it is a great idea too. Primes are good and all but if you can get even a bit of zoom it just allows a bit more flexibility while still retaining the speed and sharpness. This is especially true if you are shooting from a position where you can’t move but need the extra light or zoom.

        If only this was a FX lens then it would be very cool.

        • Mk.82

          And it works well as zooms can be made sharper, less distortions etc than primes, but mainly from 80% of the midlle zoom range, so 10% short or long end are less optimal than primes, or then it is moved to another end.

    • peevee

      “Fast but very short range”

      Basically, it is a zooming prime I guess. Design a prime, and a certain mechanical rearrangement of its elements will allow you to change focal length a bit both ways, with just small loss of quality. So why waste this opportunity and keep FL fixed?

  • preston

    This will definitely not “replace” the 11-20 because it is goes much wider.

    • I don’t think they will keep both versions in production.

      • Graham Blaikie

        The 11 or 12mm focal length is very useful for many. There is a big difference between 14 and 11 so it seems to me that they must have both in production. But 14-20 seems an odd choice of focal lengths. For it to be useful at f2 it would have to have exceptional performance at full aperture and not have noticeable coma, especially if it were to be used in astrophotography. Scratching my head on this one.

        • Aldo

          These focal lengths destroy people when it comes to distortion… Main reason I don’t consider going smaller like many are doing.

        • Isaac Alonzo

          Maybe they’re limiting to 14 to avoid vignetting when wide open.

      • FountainHead

        But keeping the 11-16 alongside this one makes sense IMO…

        • FelipeGR

          I was under the impression that the 11-16 was replaced in the lineup with the 11-20.

      • Mistral75

        Not a replacement of but an addition to the current 11-20mm f/2.8 and 12-28mm f/4.

      • Spy Black

        They are two different beasts if you think about it. It’s all in the maximum aperture. And probably price.

      • beach

        why would they can the 11-20 – it’s only been available since March 2015? Does it sell so poorly? Or has performance issues? Didn’t really follow it much – no longer shoot DX.

        • El Aura

          Wide-angle zooms started on FF with 20-35 mm (unless you want to count the 24-50 mm zooms) and only in a second step went down to 16/17/18-35 mm.

        • I have the 11-20mm and I think the performance is fantastic. Have read a couple of professional reviews which say it improves on the 11-16mm, which was very well regarded. A big issue I had was waiting on the UK release which still hadn’t happened months after its eastern release – I ended up importing it bcecause I just couldn’t wait any longer.

      • preston

        This new one is aiming for the same market that the Sigma 18-35 is (and the Sigma 24-35 for full frame). Very different market than the crowd that wants general purpose zooms like the 11-20.

    • It’s probably response to Sigma’s f/2 efforts, not sure about the focal lenght practicality, but it’s not that bad. I’d say it’s more “hey we can do 14/2, it’s widest f/2 zoom” more than “replacement”, it’s not that essential to have f/2 uwa.

      • Spy Black

        I doubt it’s in response to the Sigma. You don’t just slap a lens together to say “me too”. This had to be in development for a while. At least, if you plan on doing it right.

    • Colin Stuart

      +1 agreed. Thought the same thing. 11mm is WAY more handy than f2 instead of f2.8 on a super wide angle lens.

      • Pat Mann

        It really depends on what you’re shooting with it. For the general uses of a 90-degree lens for architecture, interiors and strong perspectives in landscape, certainly. For a little narrower angle in low light such as for night street shooting and interior photojournalism, it could be just the ticket.

      • peevee

        “11mm is WAY more handy than f2 instead of f2.8 on a super wide angle lens.”

        If you are shooting real estate on assignment, from a tripod – sure. If you are shooting your dancing friends at a party indoors, or a cityscape at night handheld – f/2 wins hands down.

    • Captain Megaton

      I wish someone would just go make a couple of WA APSC primes for F mount. A small 15 mm (a la Pentax) would be very welcome. An 18 mm and 12 mm also.

  • RS-Yoyo

    Either the lens has grown or the person in the pic has small-ish hands.

    • preston

      Of course it grew. It’s a full stop faster.

    • Jebagi Erol Paker

      japanese hand

    • Spy Black

      Large aperture lens. Look at the size of the lens mount.

    • Foto Tygřík

      . The lens is definitely a bit bigger concerning its larger aperture. Look
      on product number written on the lens hood, it says BH-823. My Tokina
      12-24 has BH-779, Tokina 11-16 has BH-77A or so, both have 77mm thread.
      So I assume that this lens has 82mm thread (first two digits of lens
      hood number).

  • Eskil Ginman

    For FF this lens would make perfect sense and would undoubtedly be very popular. For APS-C though, I’m not so sure. 14 mm is not wide enough to be attractive to me regardless of the aperture.

    • I can imagine a FF version being twice as big as the nikon 14-24/2.8.

      • Eskil Ginman

        As long as it’s not bigger than the old Nikkor 13 mm f/5.6 it should not be a problem…

  • Deep_Lurker

    This 14-20mm f/2, along with the 11-20mm f/2.8 and Sigma’s 18-35mm f/1.8, does raise a question: Where are the DX primes of 24mm and wider?

    Thom Hogan (among others) has been beating the drum for wide DX primes for a long time, and the existence of these fast wide DX zooms shows that such primes wouldn’t be either impossible to make or absurdly (>$1000) expensive. And it’s not just Nikon not-offering these lenses, so it can’t be put down to a simple “Nikon is being stupid” theory. So where are they?

    (Disclaimer: I’m not the market for such lenses myself. A 24mm DX prime would be on the bottom of my wish list, and wider primes don’t even show up there at all. The prime I particularly miss for DX is a “portrait telephoto” 70mm f/1.8)

    • Pat Mann

      I’ve been in the market for wide primes for DX since the D200. I wouldn’t necessarily use “stupid,” but shortsighted and misguided when DX is your biggest market seems appropriate. I hope to see a D400, but it’s only going to mean anything to me if it comes with the release of some DX wide primes. If Nikon won’t do it, at least let Zeiss do it for them. PLEASE!

    • Eskil Ginman

      “Where are the DX primes of 24mm and wider?”
      Well, there is the Samyang 10 mm f/2.8 ED AS NCS CS. Other than that, there is not much to choose from when it comes to wide angle primes. But that goes for FX as well. There simply are no modern replacement for the ancient 13 mm f/5.6 AS-s. The widest prime you can get from Nikon is the new 20 mm f/1.8. All other wideangles are zooms. I suspect that the simple answer is that there is not much to gain by making a wideangle lens with just one local length. A short span wideangle zoom is just a wide angle prime with a movable front element.

      • David Peterson

        There is the Rokinon/Samyang 16mm for APS-C as well. Very affordable, I’ll likely get it soon as I see it on sale

  • Bjorn

    It’ll be a great lens for school for sure. Depending on the price and if it will work with FX format on the “long end” (like the original Tokina 11-16 did), it might be a a very versatile lens for certain applications. But I think it’ll have to be cheaper than Nikons 20 f/1,8 for that to happen. Time will tell 🙂

  • Adam Brown

    Doesn’t seem like a replacement for the 11-20 which is for ultrawide shooting. This is more normal wide angle, but a fast zoom. Competition for the Sigma 18-35/1.8 perhaps.

    • Yeah, I’d prefer a 12-18mm zoom so that it matches the Sigma better 😛

      • Adam Brown

        They overlap in the 18-20 range. The Sigma goes for more of a normal view, equivalent of 27-52. While the Tokina seems to go for a normal wide view, equivalent of 21-30.

  • Tim

    Maybe. It really depends. I am looking for a 24mm ff equivalent prime on apsc. 2.0 is critical, but so is sharpness. Will use it mostly for video, and samyang seems more interesting right now.

    Indoor it would be useful.

    • The Roki-Bow-Yang 16mm f/2 APS-C is wicked sharp, I can attest to that. I’ve made some huge prints with it from my Nikon D5200 and D5300, and even without an AA filter and 24 megapixels crammed into that sensor, the 16mm f/2 resolves like a champ.

      Having said that, 14mm f/2 is very, very tempting if it is sharp enough, and with Tokina’s reputation I suspect it will be.

  • Aldo

    There’s something about the italic letters that makes it look cheap… also I don’t wan’t my ‘pro’ gear to say “pro” on it…. but of course this is completely irrelevant.

    • MonkeySpanner

      Then how will everyone else know it is pro gear?

      • Aldo

        Reminds me of …

        • MonkeySpanner

          Hey you can never be too careful. Everyone must hear what I have to say. Jajajaja.

      • Pat Mann

        Because the photographer is wearing a Domke vest that has “PRO” stenciled in big white letters on the back and has a big press card thingy around her neck?

    • Pat Mann

      Pros always cover that stuff up with black gaffer tape anyway so the subject’s eyes don’t say “Pro” or “Nikon.” I do agree that a little restraint in labeling your products makes a better impression – let the design speak for itself.

      • Carleton Foxx

        True pros use their equipment so much that all the lettering, paint, and chrome is worn off so reading it is not an issue. I saw one photojournalist recently who took this to an absurd extreme, even his camera straps were in shreds.

    • That italic serif font is horrendous. It reminds me of all the cheap packing that comes out of China, because apparently communist party policy is to only print in one garish font that sort of resembles Times New Roman.

      Sure, it’s all about image quality, if you’re that type of person. The Sigma Art line makes their old lenses look pretty rough, even though there are many great EX lenses still sold. I know that affects sales, and consequently, use.

  • Pat Mann

    Definitely a different market than the 11-20. This will cost more, is much larger, heavier and bulkier, will require a Lee or other special filter kit over the hood. This is a special-purpose high-speed zoom with a very narrow zoom range, not a general-purpose ultrawide for tight urban spaces, interiors, architecture and strong perspectives like the 11-20.

    • decisivemoment

      That’s a BH-823 hood, which I think is their standard 82mm wide angle hood. So no special filter kit. But no 77mm filters either.

      • Pat Mann

        Makes sense. A 21-equivalent won’t have a big bulbous front, even if it is f/2.

    • Doesn’t look much heavier or larger than any of the existing crop-sensor ultrawides they’ve got. As mentioned, the hood is the same as the existing 82mm hood.

      MY bet is, under 600-700g? (well under 2 lbs, unlike the 2.8 full-frame ultrawides these days, and the Sigma 20 1.4 unfortunately…)

  • MonkeySpanner

    I will take the wider range of the 11-20.

  • VanHoff

    I can’t see the appeal of this piece, who wants a 21-30mm f/3.2?

    If I were a DX user I’ll stick with the sigma 27.5-50mm f/2.7 (a.k.a 18-35 f/1.8)

    • Spy Black

      What’s your point in comparing two completely different lenses with unrelated focal lengths?

    • It’s only f/3.2 if you care about shallow DOF, which a nightscape photographer doesn’t. (Actually, an astro-landscape shooter usually WELCOMES the equivalence of greater DOF!)

      Compared to the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, this Tokina definitely has its work cut out for it, but again a nightscape shooter would gladly sacrifice that long end for the wide end.

      Or, if you do care about shallow DOF, compared to the Sigma 24-35 f/2, this Tokina is probably going to weigh about half as much, and likely cost much less too, especially as part of an overall APS-C system instead of a Full-Frame system.

      TLDR; yes it’s certainly a specialty lens that most people shouldn’t think twice about, but for those who do shoot nightscapes, it could be a holy grail!

    • John

      Ironically I think the sigma 18-35 is part of the reason for the tokina 14-20. Hear me out: the sigma shows there’s a market for fast excellent DX zooms. [hell i got one] For DX there is a dearth of wide angle options. Ergo this lens fills a gap in the DX world.

      Personally if I had to choose just one, either 18-35 or 14-20, I would likely go 18-35 but they seem to me like they would compliment each other nicely if speed is your thing. [though I’m leaning more towards getting the 11-20]

      well thats my two cents

    • Carleton Foxx

      The short answer to your question is that at f/2 this lens allows you to shoot with a higher shutter speed relative to ISO so you can stop motion more easily. And don’t even start with “total light” and sensor size and noise and all that. It’s like trying to argue that two 20-year-old wives is equivalent to one 40-year-old wife.

      Nothing is equivalent to anything in our universe, everything is a tradeoff; that’s the inescapable truth of existence and if you don’t like it all you can do is try to find one that suits you better.

    • Captain Megaton

      Well, some people don’t want to play with with WA zooms on full frame. It’s an expensive game after all. Within DX, an extra stop is an extra stop, full stop.

      Second, for DX, 21mm eq. and 28mm eq. aren’t remotely the same thing.

  • This makes no sense to me, well at least the bit about what it could be replacing.. The 11-20mm f2.8 that it is mentioneis *just* out (it’s also a fantastic piece of glass I might add), frplacing the 11-16mm that was around for years. This is a little faster with a more restricted range, but there’s a fair bit of overlap.

    • Pat Mann

      Depending on how good it is, it could be very interesting for general interior documentary/environmental portrait use and night street shooting, club shooting, etc. “A little faster?” One stop is a lot more speed in this range. By giving you one more stop, It gives you the low-light performance of shooting full frame with an f/2.8 lens, for example. We pay a lot to go to full frame as well.

      • Yeah, sorry, ‘a little’ was an extraneous, but the main point was that I doubt this will be replacing a recently released lens.

  • Yeah, the difference between 11mm and 14mm is huge, I don’t think this is a “replacement” for the 11-20 at all. Or, maybe so many people already own the 11-16 that 11-20 sales weren’t too hot, so they’re just trying to step it up a notch with the exotic-ness and jump on the faster-than-2.8 zoom bandwagon.

    Either way, I’ll buy it. As an nightscape / timelapse photographer who uses 2-3 cameras per night, you can never have too many options that go to the equivalent of ~20mm and are as fast as possible. 🙂

  • Pity it is not FX.

    • Yes, a full-frame 14-20mm f/2 (that weighed and cost as much as the Sigma 20 1.4) is something I definitely WOULD pay ~$900 for!

      • true

        14- zooms are ok, but 12- is the new goal to accomplish imo. Maybe sigma will perfect the 12-24 with Art lens

        • It totally depends on the intended use. I know the Canon 11-24 f/4 is making waves, but I think 11/12mm on full-frame is just as much of a novelty / specialty as anything else we’re talking about here, or even less useful.

          In other words, this is an f/2 zoom, not an f/4 zoom, and there’s room on the market for both. I know I’d much rather have a lighter weight f/2 zoom that gets to the equivalent of ~20mm, than a brick-and-a-half f/4 zoom that gets to 11/12mm. But there’s definitely a lot of room in between those.

  • true

    I find it interesting that tokina is willing to put out so many different WA out there. f2, that’s interesting. Maybe 11-16 f2 next?

  • Max

    I wish there was a 14 – 40mm DX lens.

  • Glad2cu

    tokina and tamron, sigma are cheap options. i used to own a tamron. But i will never get them again, after seeing someone using it and they simply looked poor and miserable. After all, Nikon lenses are superior in many ways!

    • So which Nikon lens is superior to this Tokina or even the 11-16/2.8?

    • FelipeGR

      Someone’s been reading too much Ken Rockwell.

    • Joseph

      Just stop…..

  • Foto Tygřík

    The lens is definitely a bit bigger concerning its larger aperture. Look on product number written on the lens hood, it says BH-823. My Tokina 12-24 has BH-779, Tokina 11-16 has BH-77A or so, both have 77mm thread. So I assume that this lens has 82mm thread (first two digits of lens hood number).

  • waterengineer

    Can someone produce a photo of this next to the 11-16mm and the 12-24mm? Thanks. Just curious about the size given it is f/2. Thanks.

  • Nikita

    Interesting, but as suggested below, I doubt this would replace the 11-20. It’d be a faster more expensive alternative.
    Glad to see interesting WA choices for DX. Nikon’s clearly not interested.

  • FelipeGR

    I can see this one being great for shooting in very low light. I own both the 12-24 II (DX) and 16-28 (FX) and they are both fantastic pieces of glass, they do show some color fringes, but nothing that Lightroom can’t fix.

    I’ve already had 2-3 people who bought Tokina lenses after seeing some photos I took with mine and/or playing with my lenses.

    The problem with Tokina updates is that even though they try to update as much as they can optically, and the 11-20 and 12-28 both added 4mm on the tele end, it can be hard to justify the update since the previous lens design it’s still pretty good. I still don’t see a reason to upgrade my 12-24, simply because it’s quite fantastic.

    The “II” version of the 11-16 and 12-24 was a good one for Nikon users because it added the built in focus motor for the D3000/D5000 series.

  • peevee

    “it will probably be a replacement for the current Tokina AT-X 11-20mm f/2.8 PRO DX”

    It is not a replacement, it is totally unique lens. Perfect for indoor and nighttime photography.

  • Back to top