Tokina 14-20mm f/2.0 AT-X Pro DX lens for Nikon F mount now available for pre-order

Tokina 14-20mm f:2.0 AT-X Pro DX lens design
With the lack of good Nikkor DX wide angle lens choices and the new D500 camera, Tokina got the timing right to release their latest 14-20mm f/2.0 AT-X Pro DX (most of the information already leaked last year). The new lens is now available for pre-order at Adorama and B&H. Shipping is expected in mid-March, 2016.

Tokina 14-20mm f/2.0 AT-X Pro DX lens technical information and specifications:

The fast F2.0 Zoom lens of Tokina
Since the maximum aperture of F2.0 is given this lens, it's possible to support the low sensitivity photography used ISO64 and ISO100 setting. The maximum aperture of F2.0 shows its power for the photography using the blur feeling and photography with the low brightness (In the room, In the night).

Adopt highly precise Plastic Aspherical lens
The 2nd lens group in this lens is adopted the plastic aspherical lens which improved surface accuracy, and is given antireflection coat. This lens is designed tough against ghost flare.

Arrange highly precise Glass molded Aspherical lens
2 pieces of super low dispersion glass molded aspherical lens is located in the back goup of the lens, and various aberration are corrected by these lenses.

Compact Body and Excellent Operability
Tokina’s exclusive One-touch Focus Clutch Mechanism allows the photographer to
switch between AF/MF simply by sliding the focus ring, forward side for AF and back toward the camera for MF. This lens is designed as the fast aperture F2.0 in all focal range, but it is a compact body. This lens has a thread in the front frame, so it’s possible to attach filters of 82mm size.


  • Focus distance: 14 - 20 mm
  • Brightness: F2.0 Canon
  • Format : APS-C
  • Minimum aperture: F22
  • Lens configuration: 13 elements in 11 group
  • Coating: Multilayer film coating
  • Angle of view: 91.68° ~ 71.78°
  • Filter size: 82mm
  • Shortest Object Distance: 0.28m
  • Macro maximum magnification: 1:8.36
  • Focus method: Internal focus
  • Number of Aperture blades: 9
  • Maximum diameter: 89.0 mm
  • Full length: 106.0 mm
  • Weight: 725 g
  • Hood (Attached) : BH-823

Tokina 14-20mm f:2.0 AT-X Pro DX lens hood
Product codes:

  • Nikon mount: 4961607634400
  • Canon mount: 4961607634417
  • BH-823 hood: 4961607711149

Sample photos (more available here):

Tokina 14-20mm f:2.0 AT-X Pro DX lens sample photo 2 Tokina 14-20mm f:2.0 AT-X Pro DX lens sample photo 3 Tokina 14-20mm f:2.0 AT-X Pro DX lens sample photo

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

    This lens looks fabulous. Although their already existing 11-20/2.8 offers most of what this lens has plus goes wider.

    • Trond Arild Ydersbond

      Plus that it is a lot cheaper. So for people into landscape and more casual shooting, the 11-20/2.8 is a better alternative. But they can’t really be compared. If much of the shooting is in f/1.6-2.5 land, the 11-20 simply isn’t there.

    • KnightPhoto

      Both sound of interest to us Nikon guys, my thoughts are primarily for 4K video. I haven’t bought a DX lens in years, and don’t own any right now, but I’m starting to think about it… and pricing seems quite decent actually.

      • MonkeySpanner

        Yes, DX is so good now it is almost indistinguishable from fx. And the lens selection is starting to get good. With two lenses you can go from 14-35 mm in prime lens aperture territory. Pretty good.

  • Bill

    I’d rather have the 11mm then the f/2.0… wait, I already do!

    • CERO

      the 11-16mm? I had it..sold it as I moved to FF.. worst mistake ever D:

      • Max

        it’s a good lens though, the Tokina.

  • Awaiting the “why do we need this lens” questions.

    • Jonathan

      I don’t see why we need this lens… I would rather buy the 11-20mm. (No really, I don’t get it)

      • Eric Calabros

        It’s 21mm and 24mm and 28mm, all at f/2. so there is no point except saying “we got all the prime you don’t have, in one lens”

      • Yup, “we” don’t need it. But some will need it for the aperture.

      • Trond Arild Ydersbond

        Then you have probably never struggled with high ISO quality degradation joint with too long exposure times in sub 20 mm FL. I have, often. And yes, I use the Tokina 11-16/2.8, and I need (at least) one stop more. Thought in fact about getting the Samyang 16/2, but here we have the full bag of primes, with AF.

      • Sakaphoto Graphics

        If you already have the 11-16mm f/2.8, this would be a good companion.

    • iamlucky13

      Personally I’d lean towards a 14mm F/1.8 DX prime if one could be had for smaller size and price – there’s not much cropping to be done to frame like a 20mm from a 14mm, current cameras have the pixels to spare, and this Tokina is fairly large.

      But this does seem like a pretty compelling alternative, and I can definitely understand others not wanting to crop.

  • Michiel953

    Tailormade for a D500; appropriate weight!

    • Kamen Minkov

      If only it didn’t suffer from focus issues (the lens, not the D500)…

  • Trond Arild Ydersbond

    It is the 21-30mm interval where I use the 17-35/2.8 most on FX, and here I get a functional equivalent for DX. Getting approximately the same image quality by shooting at half ISO and one step faster aperture. That is great news, IMHO the biggest problem with Sigma’s 18-35/1.8 is that it does not go wider. Who will be the first to launch the 35-70/2?

    • jonra01

      That sounds good. I can imagine a kit with a D500, 14-20 Tokina, 18-35 Sigma (have), 35-70 f/2 (?), any of the great 70-200 2.8’s, a 300 Nikon f/4 PF, and a couple of Nikon extenders – 1.4X and 1.7X. Sounds like a system to me, although I might be tempted to trade the 35-70 f/2 for the Sigma 50 f/1.4. If I dropped the 35-70, I’d probably add a 70 f/2.8 Sigma macro for my portrait lens.

    • hp

      Agreed, 18–35/1.8 is such a great lens (sharpness wide open especially at 18 mm, beautiful bokeh when focusing close and actually getting bokeh – though perspective gets unflattering for most living things) but I’m occasionally wanting better reach in wide end.

      • mads

        .. and its not for FF

  • Aldo

    Prospect d500 owners are now salivating at these newer third party lenses… while nikon ‘trusts’ you’ll use their aging ones…

    • Karlo Vuk

      There goes $3k + XQD cards and a reader. Kind of expensive for a crop + third party system.

    • Trond Arild Ydersbond

      I think it may also be a policy thing for Nikon right now: They point to the D500 for telephoto use, and they don’t want pros to choose D500 as first or second body over D5 – so they carefully avoid to offer glass that could make it more competitive for general use. But that may change.

      • That’s an interesting consideration, actually. When Nikon first announced the D300 and D3, they did so very close to the announcement of the 14-24 as well, and in my opinion they really, really “attacked” Canon’s weakest point in action sports: The fact that they were using a 1.3x crop sensor, and had zero decent ultra-wide glass, period.

        To this day, I still have the poster that Sandro did for the D3. IMO it was a milestone shot-across-the-bow for the whole Nikon versus Canon situation. (the image at 1:00 is what I’m referring to, mainly)

        I think that, combined with the anti-DX shaming that Nikon received in 2005-2007, they made a decision in ~2006/2007 to just quit with the “pro” DX grade lenses, (17-55 2.8, 12-24, and 10.5) …and focus entirely on full-frame lenses for wide-angle shooting. Making their DX bodies either beginner / consumer-oriented, (the 10-24 DX is incredibly sharp, but not pro-grade overall) …or simply intended for use with full-frame lenses as a telephoto, 2nd camera addition to an existing lineup.

        TLDR; you’re right, even now that Nikon has given us the D500 we always dreamed the D300s successor would be, they’ve still clearly left “DX pros” high and dry in the realm of wide-angle shooting.

        But honestly that’s OK with me, because there are some incredible lenses out there. Of course the original 12-24 f/4’s from both Nikon and Tokina are still super-sharp even on today’s 24 MP AA-less lenses, as was the original Tokina 11-16. Then the Sigma 18-35 1.8 and the Rokinon 16 2.0 came out, not as wide but even more incredibly sharp. Next the Rokinon 10mm 2.8 and the Tokina 11-20 2.8 and 12-28 f/4 took sharpness up a notch again, and now we have the 14-20 2.8. All in all, that’s almost more killer wide-angle options than full-frame has!

      • nhz

        That’s my thought as well and you see much of the same with Canon DSLRs. There are no really attractive WA lenses for APS-C sensor, they both have a good quality +/- 35mm equivalent prime but that’s about it, below that focal length there are just a few consumer zooms.

        Canon has the 11-18mm IS zoom which is small, compact and cheap but also dim, with limited range and good but not great optically. Nikon 10-24DX has a bit more practical specs but doesn’t seem to be top quality glass either. They both have semi-pro zooms that go from WA to tele (Canon 15-85IS and Nikon 16-80VR), good but not top quality optics (and mechanics) either.

        We now have several third party alternatives for DX (S)WA zooms but they are all big/heavy/expensive.
        Maybe it just isn’t possible to make a high quality prime or slower zoom in the WA range for DSLRs that is relatively small and light? At least for mirrorless there are a few much smaller and still pretty good options …

        • Trond Arild Ydersbond

          Maybe the Zeiss Touit 12/2.8 can give a clue as to what may be achieved in mirrorless:

          It is just 260g, but only f/2.8 AND at that modest aperture, it still has like 2 stops vignetting. And it is no law of nature that short-focal glass has to vignette that much, the Tokina 11-20/2.8 has less than 1 stop at worst, and far less in most of the zoom range. It is more than twice the weight of the Touit, but you get a lot more, too.

          So maybe final size of a lens is more a non-linear function of the “output” specification parameters (resolution, vignetting, coma correction etc) than the design criteria (diameter, register distance etc)?

          Older fast glass with moderate size wasn’t usually very sharp and contrasty fully open. That’s what I need it to be, and I’ll have to accept the size the lens constructors come up with. They are surely not paid by weight 😉

  • whisky

    i just want to know if Tokina used Google Translate to ingest Kanji and spit out English?

  • Jirka

    Any rumours about nikkor FX 16-35 2,8 ?

    • Not that I know of, and at this point I’m not entirely sure how it would fit into the current market. The 14-24 2.8 is already awesome, The Tamron 15-30 is similarly awesome with a tad longer range, and also has the size / weight of the 14-24.

      Oh, and the Tokina 16-28 is decent, but also rather heavy and bulbous.

      So really the question is, when you ask for a new 2.8 ultra-wide from Nikon: Which type of lens are you expecting, a lighter weight lens that accepts 82mm filters, or another gigantic beer barrel of a lens that doesn’t accept filters and weighs 2-3 lbs?

      Personally, I feel like Nikon already has their champion, weight-is-no-object, trophy of a fast ultrawide in the 14-24. So if they do have a 16-35 2.8 in the works, I hope it is at least a bit lighter and smaller, and accepts filters. Otherwise I don’t think I’ll be interested.

      • preston

        I would love to see Nikon update the 14mm prime that was made obsolete when the 14-24 was released. The 14-24 is great at 14mm but one would think that a lens design 100% optimized for wide open performance at 14mm (no coma!) would easily be able to beat it. I personally don’t care if it is $3k cause I am only able to do astro trips about once a year so I’d only be renting the lens anyway. They could market it as the wide angle companion to the D810A 🙂

        • Ditto! As fantastic as the 14-24 2.8 is, it’s extremely impractical to include in a multi-body, multi-lens setup for astro-landscape photography and timelapse work when backpacking in the wilderness. I know, because I’ve lugged that dang thing up Mt Whitney, down into the Grand Canyon, and a few other places that involved many miles of hiking and many thousand feet of elevation gain / loss.

          Understandably, plenty of other photographers shake their heads when folks like myself balk repeatedly about the size and weight of almost all of the recent new wide-angle lenses. So I recorded this video here: …Basically, the more lightweight and compact a lens+body combination is, the more easily I can carry one or two or three more of them into the wilderness. I’d rather have a single, compact and lightweight full-frame setup, plus 1-3 ultra-light and super-compact APS-C combos, than a single flagship full-frame body and just 1-2 flagship / “trophy-sized” lenses…

          However ,I am not sure what Nikon’s best move is at this point. They might get laughed at if they make “just” a 14mm 2.8. Personally, I’m already strongly considering the Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 fisheye instead of my current Rokinon 14mm, since the distortion on the existing Rokinon is just so ridiculous.

          Also, if you’ll recall, for a time Nikon was the previous record-holder in non-fisheye ultra-wides with their 13mm f/5.6, a lens their optical engineers are still very proud of to this day, especially considering its astonishing lack of distortion.

          It is this history and current situation, combined with the possibility of Nikon making a 15-30 or 16-35 2.8 as well, that inclines me to believe / hope a rectilinear 12mm f/2.8 or 13mm f/2.8 could come next from Nikon.

          Then again, such a lens may also be ginormous, 2+ lbs, and expensive.

          So, TLDR; honestly I have more hope in Rokinon (moreso than Nikon, at least) instead making a 15mm f/2.8 or 16mm f/2.8, that is a bit more compact and accepts 77mm or 82mm filters, or maybe a 16mm f/2 with a “bulbous” front element, or a 17mm or 18mm f/2.

          We shall see. Either way, 2016 is already going to be a very exciting year even with the stuff that is already announced or on the market.

          • preston

            Good point. Rather than update the 14/2.8 they should make an 11 or 12mm f/2.8 or 3.5. This would compete with the wider than 14mm options offered by Sigma and Canon.

            • I feel that if Nikon aims for 10mm, 11mm, or 12mm with a rectilinear, distortion-free ultra-wide prime, they might be better off going with an f/4 instead, for weight and cost purposes.

        • BTW, no, I do not care for $3K prime lenses, no matter how perfect they are. Because they’re bound to also be huge and heavy. The 14-24 already has extremely low coma, very low distortion, and decently low vignetting.

          I’d much rather have a lens the approximate size of the existing Rokinon 14, for about $1K if it’s Nikon or about $500 if it’s Rokinon.

          Actually, as I stated previously, I’d much rather have a 16mm or 17mm prime that either accepts filters, or hits f/2, or both.

          • preston

            I have the 16-35/4 vr for filter work. It sounds like we have different requirements for this lens which is fine of course. I got that over the 14-24 due to the 77mm filter ring (already had a full set of that size filter due to my previous ownership of the Tokina 11-16/2.8), the better range (I use 24-35mm more often than 16-18mm), and the vr which is very useful for me at times. So the only time I’d want a faster than f/4 ultrawide is for the once or twice a year that I make it out to an area with dark enough skies to get night shots with stars.

            • preston

              By the way, I rented the Rokinon 14mm for a trip to Joshua Tree NP last fall and was super angry with the lens (and myself) when I later on got the files on my computer and found out that the hard focus stop on infinity was actually past infinity. Had lots of slightly out of focus shots from the trip! It was just slight enough that I didn’t notice it when inspecting on the camera lcd, but on the computer it was instantly obvious. Live and learn!

            • Yes, the Rokinon 14 focus ring has a whole ton of slop too, it can take as much as 1/8 turn to even start changing focus at all when you’re in the middle of the range. The hard stop “problem” is actually there to help compensate for shooting in extremely cold conditions, I think. I don’t know if your temps were very cold when you went to Joshua Tree, but in normal conditions I set the Rokinon to the actual infinity mark on the lens, but when it gets down to ~10 degrees or below, I find myself setting it to the hard-stop quite often.

              The Rokinon 14 2.8 is one lens that I’d love to see Rokinon update, just as much as (if not more than) I’d love to see Nikon make one of their own…

            • decentrist

              even at full out zoom view on the lcd?

            • Yup, for anyone who only shoots nightscapes occassionally, and mostly shoots traditional landscapes, a 2.8 ultra-wide prime plus 16-35 f/4 combo is PERFECT. No need to fix what ain’t broke, especially now that so many ultra-wides are bumping up to 82mm filter threads.

              Personally I’m a fan of the Tokina 17-35 f/4 in this regard, it’s a hair lighter than the Nikon, a bit smaller, and dirt-cheap. Perfect for me as someone who balances more towards faster nightscape shooting.

              You’re right though, it is very rare that one would need both a fast aperture AND filter threads. Most folks will be set with a lightweight ~14 2.8 prime and a lightweight ~16-35 f/4 zoom.

      • Jirka

        Well.. I want range of my 16-35 f/4 with filter capibilities, but with 2,8 because of night sky photos, smaller depth of field (if needed) etc etc. I sold my 14-24 and 24-70, because they dont fit with focal range into 90% all of my photos. Actually I want something like 16-50 or 18-50 2,8 VR FF lens, but 16-35 2,8 VR would be ok on D800 (with small cropping i get 50mm).

        • Yeah, considering how big lenses like Tamron’s 15-30 2.8 are getting these days, I don’t think even an 18-50 2.8 is practical or feasible on full-frame.

          The good news is, if you shoot candid journalism at least where megapixels and DOF come secondary to simply capturing great moments, …you can just use a 16-35 in DX crop mode and get yourself a 16-50 equivalent.

          I know everybody rolls their eyes (or starts grabbing rotten vegetables) whenever someone mentions in-camera DX crop mode, however those folks usually don’t understand just how high-volume some workflows can get. When you’re shooting thousands of photos every single week of the year, trust me it adds up and makes a huge difference, both in cutting down storage use, and cutting down editing time.

          Anyways, I totally get the photojournalist’s need for a 16-35 2.8, if they’re attempting to use it INSTEAD of a 24-70. Personally I too have not really been a big fan of either 24-70 or 14-24 for the weddings I do, neither was perfect enough of a focal length to fully merit the price or weight.

          Personally, I’d rather have a 21-60 2.8, but again, I doubt that’ll ever happen.

          Actually lately I’ve been dumping my 2.8 zooms in favor of various primes, and a 24-120 f/4 VR for when I absolutely need a zoom.

          • Jirka

            Yeah, lenses are getting huge these days, but I believe that next gen. of lets say 24-70 will get smaller and lighter. Look at nikkor 24-70 VR nowadays, it is 15cm 1000g lens, but tamron 24-70 VC is only 11cm 860g.
            Canon 16-35 2,8 is 11cm 640g so I think that it is possible to create lens this size. But i’m not lens engineer… so who knows.

            • Yeah, unfortunately one of the reasons that certain lenses are bigger or smaller than others is, simply put, that some lenses stink. The Canon 16-35 2.8, indeed a rather lighweight lens and one that accepts 82mm filters, is utterly abysmal as anything but a dead-center photojournalism lens. In fact I can detect when someone is using it for astro-landscape work even in a measley 1080p timelapse frame; the coma, softness, and proneness to de-centering is that bad. The Nikon 17-35 2.8 is no superstar either, in the corners, although it’s a whole lot more tank-like in overall longevity and resistance to de-centering than the Canon 16-35.

              I would not expect ANY modern, sharp lens that hits that range to be less than ~2.5 lbs, and probably not to accept even 82mm filters, but I guess that’s still a possibility if they do it right.

              Considering how ginormous Tamron’s 15-30 is, I’d say that the era of sub-2lb f/2.8 full-frame zooms has officially ended, aside from 24-70 which seems to have peaked at around 1.75-2 lbs, but again I don’t see that going back down without the aide of some sort of compromising technology, one that renders weird bokeh or something, or has a sheer drop-off in edge sharpness. I guess we’ll see what the future holds.

      • What about Sigma’s 20mm f/1.4 on a Sony a7rII for size and weight for astrophotography? I don’t know the calculations off hand, but doesn’t that extra stop at 20mm make up for a wider but slower lens?

        • You’re right, the Sigma 20 1.4 adapted to a Sony A7R II would weigh about the same as, say, a Nikon D500 with a Tokina 14-20 2.0, and cost “only” ~$1.4K more.

          If I had a very important image in mind that was sure to need 20mm, I might opt for such a full-frame kit. I’d prefer a D810A over an A7R II if I were shooting a REALLY important astro-landscape image, but either way it’s a winning combo.

          But for general shooting? A 20 1.4 is a brick of a one-trick pony, As is a D810A, while a 14-20 2.0 is a bit lighter and a bit more versatile of an option overall. Plus, I’d probably be mounting the Tokina on a lighter weight D5300, not a D500.

          TLDR it depends on what your photographic goals are, and how “specialized” you want to get. Heck, being a timelapse shooter, I’d love to own three of everything.

          • Haha. I’m the same way. A D500, a D810, an a7rII and the next gen a6100 (or whatever they’re calling it). Sony’s really spoiled me with their mount that can take almost any lens (I use MF 95% of the time) and Nikon combines leading edge sensor tech and AF with really durable bodies- keeping DSLR very relevant and useful.

            A tools for every job, right? j/k A D5300 or a6000 are both incredibly capable cameras. By chance I happened to fish out my first digital camera today- a 2 MP Sony from 2002 with an f/2.8 fixed lens (who knows how small the sensor is). But some of my best memories are from pictures taken on that camera. And the pics really aren’t bad, believe it or not.

  • jonra01

    I’ve considered it. That and the Nikor 60. The main thing pushing me towards the 70mm Sigma is that 40 years ago, my favorite lens was my 105mm. The 50 probably spent more time on my OM-1, but the 105 was my fav. Especially for portraits. I’ve looked for a good 70 for the DX and have only found the Sigma and that’s discontinued. B&H has them for $399. It’s also an FX lens, so I’m covered on that if I move to a D810 instead of opting for the D500. Or, if I stay with the D7100.

  • jonra01

    Oops! The Tamron is DX only. I didn’t realize that. That’s pretty much a deal breaker. I may move to FX within the next 12 months, so buying more DX lenses is out. The 18-35 f/1.8 Sigma I just bought is going to be my last DX lens. I would have bought the 35mm f/1.4 Sigma art lens if I’d thought I might go FX soon. The darn D500/D5 releases have given me the upgrade fever.

  • Trond Arild Ydersbond

    My general use of the 60/2 Tamron on D7100 has been severely limited by focus inconsistencies. With the D500 on tripod and LV, it can be great for portraits, I think. But the 85/1.8G Nikkor may be even more handy for that use – depends on working/shooting style.

  • QuantalQuetzal

    People talk about the “extra” range of DX compared to FX. I say, it’s the “extended regular” range that makes DX and the D500 so interesting for amateurs. It is just soooo much cheaper:

    With lenses like the one above you get a wide-angle at a reasonable price (the Tokina 11-20 is about 600€). Plus, with the crop factor you basically get to 300m f2.8 with a 70-200. FX users certainly have to pay more than 3000€ for a fast 300mm (the Nikon 300mm f2.8 being considerably more expensive).

    I know that crop factor is not the only thing to consider when comparing FX and DX. But for me, this is what it is really all about, as it determines the prices.

    • For me, it’s the considerable savings in lens size / weight that attracts me. Once you get past the “loss” of a stop of DOF and high ISO performance, you stop worrying about the technical inaccuracy of the phrase “equivalent focal lengths” and all you care about is angle of view for your sensor.

      Back in the day, I used a Nikon D70, D200, and D300 for full-time wedding and portrait work. I had a Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX, and a Sigma 50-150 2.8 DC, plus access to a handful of various primes here and there.

      The 17-55 + 50-150 2.8 kit was so lightweight and compact that I could fit both lenses, plus a flash, AND attached bodies, into one small shoulder bag that could fit under an airline seat. I did a lot of traveling back then for weddings.

    • outkasted

      and this is why i will have a D5/D500 combo. It just makes sense!

  • I honestly wonder what kind of company Tokina is. That they can’t manage to find a native English speaker to write (or at least proof) the press release for such a major product is amazing.

    Even if it doesn’t indicate anything about the quality of their product, it certainly doesn’t give you the impression they’re ever going to up their game in the way that Sigma and Tamron have.

    The lens design is also still hanging on to that old copycat Nikon look of decades past. And that Times New Roman looking font is so hideous. I know “it’s the quality that matters… not how pretty it is…” But it kind of matters to some of us.

    Anyway, I have nothing against the company- I’ve owned their lenses and may even buy this one- but it’s 2016, not 1996. So goofy. lol

  • Back to top