Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

tokina 11-16 F 2.8 ATX


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 The Octopus

The Octopus

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingsville, MD

Posted 03 April 2009 - 01:07 AM

Anyone use this lens underwater? Rockwell praises it as an ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) for the D300 at least on land.
D300, Aquatica Housing, Dual Inon z240 strobes, Lenses: tokina 10-17, tokina 11-16, Nikon 12-24, nikon 17-55, nikon 60, nikon 105, nikon 70-200

#2 ibsroushdi

ibsroushdi

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 46 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 02:00 AM

Just bought the lens and found a zoom gear for it (subal) struggling a little with diopters and vignetting - have cut the shade of a hoya +3 and still a little vignetting at 11mm. Will get it in the water for the first time next weekend - let you know then!

#3 stever

stever

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:18 AM

i've used it on my 20D in aquatica housing with 41mm extender on the dome and +2 diopter - disappointing corner sharpness. have been re-reading "dome theory" and hope to get around to figuring out where the entrance pupil is soon to see if i've got the right extender.

on land it is quite good - best at f4-f8, but the f2.8 is okay if you need it and useful for autofocus. under water i'm not sure if the difference between it and other good crop-format wide angles will be noticeable

#4 DrFiscus

DrFiscus

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tampa, Florida
  • Interests:Diving, underwater photography, snow skiing, golf

Posted 03 April 2009 - 10:29 AM

i've used it on my 20D in aquatica housing with 41mm extender on the dome and +2 diopter - disappointing corner sharpness. have been re-reading "dome theory" and hope to get around to figuring out where the entrance pupil is soon to see if i've got the right extender.

on land it is quite good - best at f4-f8, but the f2.8 is okay if you need it and useful for autofocus. under water i'm not sure if the difference between it and other good crop-format wide angles will be noticeable



I think I understood Aquatica to say that they recommend the 18462 52 mm extension with the 8" dome so it sounds like you are slightly off on the extension ring. They do recommend the same zoom gear as for the Tokina 12 - 24 - the 18722. Have you tried it without the diopter?
Andy
Andy Malbin
DrFiscus@msn.com
www.oceandoctorshots.com

Nikon D200, D300, Aquatica housing, twin Ikelite DS 161's, Nikon 10.5, 60, VR105, Tokina 10 - 17, Sigma 17 - 70 HSM, Tokina 11 - 16

#5 cdoyal

cdoyal

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Michigan

Posted 03 April 2009 - 01:41 PM

Is this lens less curvey than the 10-17? Mine distorts too much to be of much commercial use on land and wonder if the 11-16 is any better.
Nikon D7000, D200, Aquatica housings, Nikkor 60 and 105, Tokina 10-17, Z240s, DS125s, TLC arms
Sony HC9 in L&M Bluefin housing with 1000 LED lights.

#6 aussie

aussie

    Tiger Shark

  • Moderator
  • 544 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:GBR (Cairns), Australia
  • Interests:Diving - most weekends, music, photography

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:09 PM

Is this lens less curvey than the 10-17? Mine distorts too much to be of much commercial use on land and wonder if the 11-16 is any better.


Yep, it's far less 'curvy', as it's not a fish eye lens like the 10-17. Have a look at Photozone's review on it, where they talk about distortion.

I've used mine a good few times underwater, and so far am pretty happy with it. I've got it behind an 8" dome in my Aquatica housing, with two 18463 ex. rings (only because that's all I've got). With a +2 dioptre, corners are sharp enough, and there's no vignetting. I don't have a zoom gear for it though, generally just shoot with it at 11mm.

It's a great lens on land as well. I've got a few different filters that I use on it, and I'm quite happy with some of the results.

Ryan.
Pedlow Photographics
My Flickr
On Twitter

Canon EOS 7D. Aquatica A7D. Inon Z240's. Canon, Tokina and Sigma glass.

#7 stever

stever

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:23 PM

i just empiricaly tried to determine the entrance pupil/nodal point and indeed the 18462 appears to be the correct extension according to "dome theory" - i must have missed this on the aquatica site or they just recently added the 11-16 to the list. i also checked my 10-22 and it also seems to require the 18462 extension instead of the recommended 18453. the entrance pupil for both of these lenses appear to be very near the front surface of the lens and doesn't seem to move much with focal length.

no, i haven't tried it without the diopter, and haven't a clue how to decide on the diopter except by trial and error - any tips? do i have to make a trip to the swimming pool with a grid on a sheet of plastic?

off topic, how much difference, if any, does air space between a macro and flat port make? it looks like the 18462 and macro port would accomodate my 100 macro and kenko 1.4x. don't want to pack more stuff than i have to

#8 pxguru

pxguru

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kuala Lumpur
  • Interests:Photography, Diving, Classic Electronic Music

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:30 PM

Yep, it's far less 'curvy', as it's not a fish eye lens like the 10-17. Have a look at Photozone's review on it, where they talk about distortion.


I tested the 11-16 last week here in KL at a photo show specifically to look at how it performed vs my Tokina 12-24 f/4.

The lens is indeed a nice piece of kit and is a lot less "curvy" than the 12-24, fast autofocus and as with all Tokinas well made and a solid piece of kit. The only issue I had with it (and it could just have been the model I was testing) was that the zoom ring was pretty stiff - not sure if that was a "feature" - I suspect not. But UW a zoom clamp set would struggle to shift it I suspect! I was tempted to get it there and then had it not been for the possible defect.

Steve
Nikon D300, Nexus Housing, 2x DS-125 Strobes
Nikon lenses: 105mm VR, 60mm, 50mm, 10.5mm Tokina lenses 10-17mm and 12-24mm

#9 stever

stever

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:03 PM

the aquatica chart shows 18462 for the 10-17 fisheye, and still does not include the 11-16. the pair of 18463 extensions is probably as good (maybe better than) the 18462 which is a little on the short side - but i don't want to buy 2 extensions. encouraged by results with +2, maybe i'll just spring for the extension and hope for the best

have no problem with with zoom gear - using focus ring for Canon 60 macro

#10 cdoyal

cdoyal

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Michigan

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:57 AM

The review looks pretty good for this lens. Surpisingly little distortion at 11mm. I thought curvy was an accurate description. Sometimes we have to put the technical terms aside and have fun. I need a good topside WA and this may be it. I tried the Tokina 12-24 underwater and wasn't impressed. The corners were weak.

Edited by cdoyal, 04 April 2009 - 05:59 AM.

Nikon D7000, D200, Aquatica housings, Nikkor 60 and 105, Tokina 10-17, Z240s, DS125s, TLC arms
Sony HC9 in L&M Bluefin housing with 1000 LED lights.

#11 photovan

photovan

    Great White

  • Moderator
  • 979 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia

Posted 04 April 2009 - 06:06 AM

Don't forget that corners from any wide lens will look "better" on a Canon (1.6x crop factor) cropped sensor v a Nikon (1.5x crop factor) cropped sensor as the Canon chip is smaller so doesn't record as wide a view as the Nikon does, so effectively the Canon won't show as much of the region where the sharpness starts to fall off. But of course the lens effectively is not as wide.

Darren Jew  |  Australia  |  darrenjew.com  |  fotofrenzy.com.au

Canon EOS1Dx   |   EOSM   |   Nauticam  |   Inon Z240


#12 Mariozi

Mariozi

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dubai UAE

Posted 04 April 2009 - 08:06 AM

Also the "less curvy" feature versus your 10-17 means you will loose 75 degrees of coverage.
The 10-17 dishes out 180deg max. vs. 105deg on the 11-24mm.

I would say they are different tools for different things, although both can be used underwater with varying results.
I do have a 10.5mm FE AND a 10-20mm rectilinear and use both.

Good Luck
Marcelo Mariozi - UWPhoto.ae
EUPS - Emirates Underwater Photographic Society Member
Nikon D300 on Sea&Sea MDX-D300 w/ YS-110 (2x) & Nikon F80s on Sea&Sea NX-80 w/ YS-90 + YS-120 & Nikonos V
Nikkors 10.5mm/2.8, 10-24mm/3.5-4.5, 16mm/2.8, 14-24mm/2.8, 50mm/1.4, 60mm/2.8, 105mm/2.8, 70-200mm/2.8; Sigmas 4.5mm/2.8 8mm/4, Kenko PRO300 3x TC.

#13 stever

stever

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 04 April 2009 - 05:06 PM

oops, miscalculated - the 11-16 appears to need a whopping 2 1/2 - 64mm extension (similar extension for the Canon 10-22). haven't yet determined if this leads to vignetting

why does Aquatica recommend less than 1/2 the necessary (according to dome theory) extension for the 10-22?

what's the best way to get some weight on the port to balance the rig?

looks like i still may be in the pool with a selection of extensions