Anyone using Tokina ATX AF 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX

Looking for anyone to give personal feedback on having used this lens. I have the Tokina 11-16mm DX model which in my opinion is outstanding, but I need a wide angle for my D600 and hope that lightning has struck twice at Tokina.

Please, personal experience comments only and not from the second cousins brothers sisters roommate information. Thanks.

my neighbors uncle, cousins grandmas pen pal said...haha

seriously though, I too am very interested. getting this lens in the summer. I came to buy it a few months ago and they didnt have it in stock for a long time. I was on adoramas waiting list. I contacted THKphoto and said they were waiting for stock from japan. they get stock in once a month. but 3 months and no stock. it was known they had QC issues and im guessing thats what delayed the new one. I think they wanted to get it right. for their sake, thats best.

so instead I got the tamron 17-35 2.8-4 for now. its a nice lens but im really dying to try the tokina and see its performance. reviews only say great things about it. ive been researching reviews non stop. especially liked this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jn-YMuhuB0

not relevant to us since its comparing it to canon but goes to show even the $1800 L lens cant compete with it. im extremely psyched because from the reviews it should out perform the nikon 17-35 as well. im waiting for someone to come visit here to bring me the lens. $700..nothing to think over. great IQ, fast AF, low distortion and CA, price is killer. will also get mack vip diamond for an all risk coverage.

On another note, I dont know why they arent releasing a 24-70 and 70-200 version of theirs. with FF in high demand they could deliver something competitive to the nikon. it would be profitable if they could deliver something on tamrons level.

oh, btw, working with many pros, one wedding, I worked with a new videographer who had canon gear. he came with a scooter and couldnt carry all his gear. he asked me to take his 16-35 LII with me to the venue. he also gave me his 60d/135 f/2 lens as well. I took it and I laughed so hard holding the 16-35 2.8. its unbelievably light. it feels like nothings inside. there is no weight there. the tokina is almost 1000 grams in weight.

very weird, but not many know of the lens and it hasnt gotten the attention it deserves. such a shame. tamron has no pro (2.8) WA zoom and sigma as well. this is the only competition to nikons offerings 16-35VR/17-35AFS/14-24AFS

grainger reviewed it but hes a brand snob and held back from giving it proper credit. you can see he held back his praise for the tokina. god forbd the tokina can do 95% of what the 14-24 can do. for 2.5 times less.

rocketman122 said:

my neighbors uncle, cousins grandmas pen pal said...haha

seriously though, I too am very interested. getting this lens in the summer. I came to buy it a few months ago and they didnt have it in stock for a long time. I was on adoramas waiting list. I contacted THKphoto and said they were waiting for stock from japan. they get stock in once a month. but 3 months and no stock. it was known they had QC issues and im guessing thats what delayed the new one. I think they wanted to get it right. for their sake, thats best.

so instead I got the tamron 17-35 2.8-4 for now. its a nice lens but im really dying to try the tokina and see its performance. reviews only say great things about it. ive been researching reviews non stop. especially liked this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jn-YMuhuB0

not relevant to us since its comparing it to canon but goes to show even the $1800 L lens cant compete with it. im extremely psyched because from the reviews it should out perform the nikon 17-35 as well. im waiting for someone to come visit here to bring me the lens. $700..nothing to think over. great IQ, fast AF, low distortion and CA, price is killer. will also get mack vip diamond for an all risk coverage.

On another note, I dont know why they arent releasing a 24-70 and 70-200 version of theirs. with FF in high demand they could deliver something competitive to the nikon. it would be profitable if they could deliver something on tamrons level.

oh, btw, working with many pros, one wedding, I worked with a new videographer who had canon gear. he came with a scooter and couldnt carry all his gear. he asked me to take his 16-35 LII with me to the venue. he also gave me his 60d/135 f/2 lens as well. I took it and I laughed so hard holding the 16-35 2.8. its unbelievably light. it feels like nothings inside. there is no weight there. the tokina is almost 1000 grams in weight.

very weird, but not many know of the lens and it hasnt gotten the attention it deserves. such a shame. tamron has no pro (2.8) WA zoom and sigma as well. this is the only competition to nikons offerings 16-35VR/17-35AFS/14-24AFS

grainger reviewed it but hes a brand snob and held back from giving it proper credit. you can see he held back his praise for the tokina. god forbd the tokina can do 95% of what the 14-24 can do. for 2.5 times less.

Click to expand...

I think the op wanted to hear from some folks who actually "HAVE" the "LENS" not listen to a Canon bashing rant,but maybe I'm wrong !!

bigal1000 said:

I think the op wanted to hear from some folks who actually "HAVE" the "LENS" not listen to a Canon bashing rant,but maybe I'm wrong !!

Click to expand...

I know what op wanted to hear and since im going to buy this lens my bashing is very relevant since he wants to buy it too. Im just saying it like it is. If a L canon that costs so much cant handle a little competition from an $700 lens, then they need to go back and redesign it to a mark III maybe. Because mark I and II isnt doing so well. Oh and it has 3 years warranty instead of the canons 1.

Also, why does it bother you? U a canon spy on the forums? If it bothers u so much let me bring you some tissues. Wouldnt want to offend a canonist.

The truth hurts. If it was the other way around I would have no issue. And you know what, iM certain the tokina also schools the nikon 17-35. But thats a 10+ old lens design. Now u see im not biased with my opinion. I say it like it is.

The canon lens feels like a toy in the hand.feels like an old 18-35 3.5-4.5. Not what u expect from and $1800 lens.

bigal1000 said:

I think the op wanted to hear from some folks who actually "HAVE" the "LENS" not listen to a Canon bashing rant,but maybe I'm wrong !!

Click to expand...

I was going to do this in a private message but you have that feature turned off.
Your post has no place in this thread and is very disrespectful to the poster. Unless you have something positive to add to the thread please keep it to yourself. We will not tolerate these kinds of posts.

Don Kuykendall said:

I was going to do this in a private message but you have that feature turned off.
Your post has no place in this thread and is very disrespectful to the poster. Unless you have something positive to add to the thread please keep it to yourself. We will not tolerate these kinds of posts.

Click to expand...

Dont worry about it. it doesnt bother at all. Cheers Don.

rocketman122 said:

Dont worry about it. it doesnt bother at all. Cheers Don.

Click to expand...

Well it bothered me. Your post was just fine and gave useful information.

Thanks Don for the very useful info about the tokina....never knew they had this! Will consider this in the near future!

I have the lens and personally use it in weddings (table shots, head table, dance floor, etc). It's doesn't have fast AF (compared to 24-70/70-200), but the IQ and sharpness is really good, especially stepped down to around f4.

I wouldn't recommend using this for people photos, but for landscapes - it's definitely one of the best value lenses. Here's a sample jpeg full res (un touched jpg straight from camera in a wedding I did.

D700
16mm
1/30
f 3.5
ISO 800
No flash

Have you used it for star photography?

aZuMi said:

I wouldn't recommend using this for people photos, but for landscapes - it's definitely one of the best value lenses. Here's a sample jpeg full res (un touched jpg straight from camera in a wedding I did.

Click to expand...

Is this with or without software distortion correction? How does it fare with fringing in bright light? How well (not how fast) does it focus indoors?

I've never used it for star photography - but I'm positive it will perform well with that.

Moab Man said:

Have you used it for star photography?

Click to expand...

The photo I posted has no software distortion correction and completely right from the camera. I can't comment on the purple fringing since it's mainly used indoors, but I'll shoot some outdoor shots later for everyone.

Indoors, it focuses pretty well. I usually shoot in fairly dark conditions and it focuses without issues.

NVSteve said:

Is this with or without software distortion correction? How does it fare with fringing in bright light? How well (not how fast) does it focus indoors?

Click to expand...

Overall, this lens is quite amazing. I never felt the need to get the 14-24mm 2.8 since 16mm is plenty wide and plenty sharp for my needs.

Here are more JPG photos right out of D700. The distortion control is OFF and no software is used.

Nikon D700
16mm
1/4000
f2.8
ISO 100





After some pixel peeping on these shots, there are traces of purple fringing, but it's well controlled and doesn't affect the whole image. The image is very sharp at 2.8 and colours are well saturated when shot at proper exposure. I still 100% recommend it to people looking for good value wide angle lens.

For those who wants to see 100% zoom of the photos:
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q225/o0aZuMi0o/DSC_3214_zpsb8630a9d.jpg~original
http://s137.photobucket.com/user/o0aZuMi0o/media/DSC_3217_zps205558f7.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

rocketman122 said:

i know what op wanted to hear and since im going to buy this lens my bashing is very relevant since he wants to buy it too. Im just saying it like it is. If a l canon that costs so much cant handle a little competition from an $700 lens, then they need to go back and redesign it to a mark iii maybe. Because mark i and ii isnt doing so well. Oh and it has 3 years warranty instead of the canons 1.

Also, why does it bother you? U a canon spy on the forums? If it bothers u so much let me bring you some tissues. Wouldnt want to offend a canonist.

The truth hurts. If it was the other way around i would have no issue. And you know what, im certain the tokina also schools the nikon 17-35. But thats a 10+ old lens design. Now u see im not biased with my opinion. I say it like it is.

The canon lens feels like a toy in the hand.feels like an old 18-35 3.5-4.5. Not what u expect from and $1800 lens.

Click to expand...

so do i

OK, after seeing this review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2_H3UwXAGk

Im on the wall with this lens. from what I see, it was designed to be its sharpest at 16mm (even shot open) and performance drops the closer you get to 28mm. and its quite unusable at 28mm if not stopped down heavily. its a good lens but the way I work its the opposite of what I need.

when I shoot my tamron 17-35 I always try to not shoot past 20mm on the dance floor whenever I can and only when its tight will I go very wide. so I do use the lens mostly from 20-35mm and the tokina is aimed to those that want the best widest performance and less so when going more tele.

now there is an issue with QC with this lens and its possible his copy was off a bit, but reading another review confimred the lens was made to perform its best at 16mm and isnt at its best when going to 28mm.

now im back to rethinking my upgrade options.

-17-35 AFS used. meh. my friend has it and performance isnt so great. I dont think the price jump will give me much better (if that) IQ. I still want to do a test with my friends 17-35 vs my tamron 2.8-4

-16-35 VR f/4 leaning towards this. but VR isnt useful to me and never felt I needed it once when shooting my tamron 17-35

-20-35 f2.8 AFD old school lens. not so sharp though. 17-35 was an improvement but even the 17-35 isnt extremely sharp.

-14-24 2.8 too heavy for my pocket and since I really hate WA lenses as they distort people in the corners. not aesthetically pleasing. 24mm is limiting.

-18-35 AFD/AFS not sure about these 2. definitely not the old school one but the aperture is limiting. and I always like shooting one stop down on any lens for better contrast/sharpness.

-sigma 17-35 HSM 2nd version. saw this lens a friend had just bought. and I had the first non HSM and remember very well how crap it was at the edges no matter how much you tried to stop it down. I may take it to do a shootout between the three. tamron 17-35/nikon 17-35/sigma 17-35

basically, I want something a bit better than what I have, dont want to spend so much. $850 the most. and want a lens with a pretty open aperture. no smaller than f/4. I guess at the moment, the tamorn is my only choice. its bothering me. im itching to buy something and I think its a psycholgical issue that I feel the tamron isnt good enough, even though a (very) quick test showed its as sharp as a 17-35 AFS. as far as distortion on ultra wides, its of no concern. the lens being so wide pulls people who are towards the corners and warps them so much that barrel distortion is the least of my problems.

suggestions? thank you

What are you using it for? What other lens do you have to compliment this range?

I only use this lens at 16mm, maybe that's why I've never had issues. Any longer, I would use my 24-70.

The new Nikon 18-35G is excellent, don't overlook it. Not quite as wide but excellent through it's entire range. f3.5 at 18mm is fast enough for me and maxes at 4.5. Excellent build and feather light, can carry all day. It's become my most used lens and accepts 77mm filters.

aZuMi said:

What are you using it for? What other lens do you have to compliment this range?

I only use this lens at 16mm, maybe that's why I've never had issues. Any longer, I would use my 24-70.

Click to expand...

And I need the opposite. I shoot weddings and shooting the dance floor with people at 24 and wider, anyone more towards the corners or edge of the frame get pulled and look warped. thats how it is. thats when you go wider than 24mm. so I try to shoot with the 28-70 AFS as much as I can at 28mm but at times when its crowded (and it gets very crowded with 300+ guests) then I need to go wider. I only use it as a last resort and while its nice to get more, the aesthetics of it kills it for me. the 16-28 was designed to be its sharpest at 16mm and the more you move towards to 28mm is its worst. I need something that will be great at 20-35 but it doesnt need to be excellent at its widest.
check out this pic here. and that was towards the end when most went home.

yep thats a wedding. they look more like dance clubs then a discrete classy venue.

Rick M said:

The new Nikon 18-35G is excellent, don't overlook it. Not quite as wide but excellent through it's entire range. f3.5 at 18mm is fast enough for me and maxes at 4.5. Excellent build and feather light, can carry all day. It's become my most used lens and accepts 77mm filters.

Click to expand...

I didnt overlook it at all and its on the list there above. but the aperture is limiting for me. I now have the tamron 17-35 2.8-4 and its a bit stepping down by getting the 18-35g. I was also considering the 20mm. but I need to be able to adjust as I go along. so a zoom is a must. right now, I dont see a logical choice and will have to think it over.

I suppose you're not using 24-70? I think I understand what you're trying to say. I also shoot weddings, but I use the 16 differently than your needs.

Well, it seems like tamron 17-35 is doing it for you. It's a good lens too.

rocketman122 said:

And I need the opposite. I shoot weddings and shooting the dance floor with people at 24 and wider, anyone more towards the corners or edge of the frame get pulled and look warped. thats how it is. thats when you go wider than 24mm. so I try to shoot with the 28-70 AFS as much as I can at 28mm but at times when its crowded (and it gets very crowded with 300+ guests) then I need to go wider. I only use it as a last resort and while its nice to get more, the aesthetics of it kills it for me. the 16-28 was designed to be its sharpest at 16mm and the more you move towards to 28mm is its worst. I need something that will be great at 20-35 but it doesnt need to be excellent at its widest.
check out this pic here. and that was towards the end when most went home.
View attachment 91395
yep thats a wedding. they look more like dance clubs then a discrete classy venue.




I didnt overlook it at all and its on the list there above. but the aperture is limiting for me. I now have the tamron 17-35 2.8-4 and its a bit stepping down by getting the 18-35g. I was also considering the 20mm. but I need to be able to adjust as I go along. so a zoom is a must. right now, I dont see a logical choice and will have to think it over.

Click to expand...

aZuMi said:

I suppose you're not using 24-70? I think I understand what you're trying to say. I also shoot weddings, but I use the 16 differently than your needs.

Well, it seems like tamron 17-35 is doing it for you. It's a good lens too.

Click to expand...

I use 28-70 AFS. the tamron is great, but I wanted something a bit better. like going from the 50/85 1.8D to the G. something a bit better. shooting people at 17mm is horrible. its nice when you can get everyone in the picture but the aesthetics is horrendous. no body want to look warped and pulled and have a huge distorted head. I prefer to go back and shoot then get in someones face with a WA.