Anyone tried Tokina 16-28mm 2.8 ATX PRO FX

aZuMi

Senior Member
Does anyone own this lens? How does this lens perform in your opinion?

I'm looking for an UWA zoom that doesn't break the bank. After looking at the different alternatives, I would choose these two mainly because it has the focal length I need and 2.8 is quite important for me.

Nikon Nikkor 14-24mm 2.8
Tokina 16-28mm 2.8


I've search many reviews from google and youtube:
Tokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro FX (FX) - Review / Test Report
FM Reviews - Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8 Pro FX

I'm not really interested in Nikkor 16-35mm or 17-35mm variants because I might as well buy a used 14-24mm rather than buying these two. What attracts me at Tokina the most is it's $750.00 CAD price range vs $1600+

Thanks for the info!
 

pedroj

Senior Member
I have the Tokina 12-24mm and the CA was pretty awful so hardly ever use it...I don't know what their other lens are like...

I bought the Nikon 16-35mm and it does the job....
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I'm also in the market for a wide. I've read good reviews on the tokina 16-28, but at that price I'd save up for the nikon
 

aZuMi

Senior Member
I'm also in the market for a wide. I've read good reviews on the tokina 16-28, but at that price I'd save up for the nikon

I know what you mean....but we're talking about double the price, no?

I have to agree with your second comment though, lol.

I prefer the Nikon 16-35 f4 VR. It's lighter very sharp and can take filters.


Maybe I'll test it out. I've heard mixed reviews about this one
 

aZuMi

Senior Member
Just an update. I jumped on the Tokina 16-28mm 2.8. I've been shopping around for a good UWA angle lens. I like the 16-35mm f4 vr and 17-35mm 2.8, but I can't pass up to the deal I'm getting with Tokina.

I got it for an excellent deal at $703.00 CAD brand new at Photo Service in Quebec. It came out $794 including taxes, while other retailers sell it for $825-$999 plus taxes! Will be receiving it today and can't wait to shoot it.

I'll post some un-edited photos so everyone can see it.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Nikon has a new 18-35 comming out for $749 and the specs look pretty good. A little late now, but if the tokina doesn't live up to your expectations...,
 

aZuMi

Senior Member
Nikon has a new 18-35 comming out for $749 and the specs look pretty good. A little late now, but if the tokina doesn't live up to your expectations...,

Thanks Rick, but the Nikon 18-35mm is not wide enough for me. Plus, it is variable aperature 3.5-4.5 G. That's actually one of the main reasons I didn't go for 16-35mm f4 vr. I tested the Tokina 16-28mm 2.8 last night and at 2.8, the focus is bang on and very sharp on the subject while slight loss on the edges. By 5.6 to 7.1, corner sharpness is really good even on the corners. On top of that, this lens is pretty much distortion free - I was blown away by the value that the lens offers. I'll put .jpg photos up tonight right from the camera.

For a pro built lens, this is a great deal - considering it's still cheaper than the non-pro 18-35mm coming up. If only Nikon comes up with the 16-35mm 2.8 sooner, lol.
 

jwstl

Senior Member
Thanks for the comments on this lens. I've been lusting after the 14-24 but that price is keeping me away. I'll take a look at the Tokina.
 

Epoc

Senior Member
I'll post some un-edited photos so everyone can see it.

I am really keen also to see some images from this lens. I have the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 and its a great lens for my D7000. I am thinking the 16-28mm lens would be good for my D700.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Thanks Rick, but the Nikon 18-35mm is not wide enough for me. Plus, it is variable aperature 3.5-4.5 G. That's actually one of the main reasons I didn't go for 16-35mm f4 vr. I tested the Tokina 16-28mm 2.8 last night and at 2.8, the focus is bang on and very sharp on the subject while slight loss on the edges. By 5.6 to 7.1, corner sharpness is really good even on the corners. On top of that, this lens is pretty much distortion free - I was blown away by the value that the lens offers. I'll put .jpg photos up tonight right from the camera.

For a pro built lens, this is a great deal - considering it's still cheaper than the non-pro 18-35mm coming up. If only Nikon comes up with the 16-35mm 2.8 sooner, lol.

Lets see some pics!
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
The one thing that scares me about this lens is this paragraph from the photozone.de review...

Unfortunately there may be a hair spoiling the (optical) soup here - quality control. As mentioned we purchased three lens samples for testing, two in Nikon and on in Canon mount, and all three showed some centering issues. The initial Nikon variant was so poor that we had to cancel the testing procedure. The second sample, used for this review, was better, but still suffered from slight decentering at the long end.

The last thing I want to do is worry about whether I got a "golden copy" (as they refer to it in the review). It sounds like aZuMi may have gotten one, and that's great. I like the idea that they're telling me it has slightly fewer flare issues than the 14-24mm. Saving $1150 is nothing to sneeze at. Given Amazon's return policy I may just jump on one and give it a go. Given my love for ultrawides, though, I'm also wondering how much I will rue not having 2mm's more? But are they worth $575 per mm? Arrrgh!!!
 

Rick M

Senior Member
The one thing that scares me about this lens is this paragraph from the photozone.de review...

Unfortunately there may be a hair spoiling the (optical) soup here - quality control. As mentioned we purchased three lens samples for testing, two in Nikon and on in Canon mount, and all three showed some centering issues. The initial Nikon variant was so poor that we had to cancel the testing procedure. The second sample, used for this review, was better, but still suffered from slight decentering at the long end.

The last thing I want to do is worry about whether I got a "golden copy" (as they refer to it in the review). It sounds like aZuMi may have gotten one, and that's great. I like the idea that they're telling me it has slightly fewer flare issues than the 14-24mm. Saving $1150 is nothing to sneeze at. Given Amazon's return policy I may just jump on one and give it a go. Given my love for ultrawides, though, I'm also wondering how much I will rue not having 2mm's more? But are they worth $575 per mm? Arrrgh!!!

Ya, same here, this type of comment is all over in regards to most 3rd party lenses. There are some really great 3rd party lenses that have become legends (tokina 11-16) but they are few and the "bad copy" comment keeps poping up.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I've been pondering this all morning. I am so on the fence, only because the new Nikon coming out only covers 1/2 the gap between my 24-85 and the 14-24. This photo is what has me most bothered...

15mm-wide-angle-vancouver-cityscape.jpg


Getting to 16mm gives me about 50% more coverage than at 18mm, and 14mm would be even better, but I could live without it at that cost. The 18 allows me to use filters, but the Tamron gives me reach and a nice fixed 2.8 for only $100 more.

Again, arrgh!! I may just roll the dice.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
For wide on FX, the 16-35 F4 VR is a real bargain. It's sharp sharp sharp and not too far behind the 14-24, plus, it covers to 35mm, plus, it takes filters… For someone that does landscapes, it is a great value in my opinion.

I know I did promised Rick M. to do a side by side of the 14-24 and 16-35 and I haven't forgotten. Time will come.
 
Top