Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Tokina AT-X 16-28 F2.8 PRO FX


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Sebastian

Sebastian

    Triggerfish

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 35 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 July 2010 - 11:22 AM

Hi,

I found this a few hours ago on nikonrumors.com

http://translate.goo...y...sl=ja&tl=en

http://translate.goo...y...sl=ja&tl=en

Sebastian
Subal ND700 - INON Z-240 Type II & IV - 2 x INON LE250 - Nikon 105mm VR - Nikon 60mm AF-S - Nikon TC-20E III Teleconverter - Marumi diopter +3, +5

#2 divegypsy

divegypsy

    Eagle Ray

  • Industry
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sarasota, FL

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:00 PM

This lens, the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 was also announced on DPReview with a link to the original Japanese announcement. The lens is simply another rectilinear wide-angle zoom. Its price is projected to be about US$1400.

BUT... the lens has no filter thread, which means no screw-in color correction filter for underwater use and no polarizer for topside use. Its minimum focus distance is .28 m., about the same as Nikon's own 17-35mm f2.8 or 16-35mm f4 VR.

Why anyone would buy this lens, which seems to offer less, rather than Nikon's or Canon's or Sony's own equivalent lenses, defies logic.

Tokina would have done much better putting their efforts and money into making a full-frame fisheye zoom, a "sibling" of their 10-17mm zoom for cropped sensor cameras, which has a very devoted following here at WetPixel and which has no competition from any of the major camera or lens manufacturers.

Fred

Edited by divegypsy, 06 July 2010 - 05:02 PM.


#3 loftus

loftus

    Blue Whale

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4571 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winter Park, Fl

Posted 06 July 2010 - 05:17 PM

This lens, the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 was also announced on DPReview with a link to the original Japanese announcement. The lens is simply another rectilinear wide-angle zoom. Its price is projected to be about US$1400.

BUT... the lens has no filter thread, which means no screw-in color correction filter for underwater use and no polarizer for topside use. Its minimum focus distance is .28 m., about the same as Nikon's own 17-35mm f2.8 or 16-35mm f4 VR.

Why anyone would buy this lens, which seems to offer less, rather than Nikon's or Canon's or Sony's own equivalent lenses, defies logic.

Tokina would have done much better putting their efforts and money into making a full-frame fisheye zoom, a "sibling" of their 10-17mm zoom for cropped sensor cameras, which has a very devoted following here at WetPixel and which has no competition from any of the major camera or lens manufacturers.

Fred

I agree; it's hard to see why someone would chose this lens over the Nikon 16-35 at this price point, unless the extra stop was a critical factor.
Nikon D800, Nikon D7000, Nauticam, Inons, Subtronic Novas. Lens collection - 10-17, 15, 16, 16-35, 14-24, 24-70, 85, 18-200, 28-300, 70-200, 60 and 105, TC's. Macs with Aperture and Photoshop.

#4 stever

stever

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 06:00 AM

the 16-35 zooms are quite soft on the edges and corners, particularly at larger apertures. Tokina's 11-16 is better on the edges that Canon's 10-22 (16-35 equivalent), hopefully the Tokina will show the same improvement over the 16-35 offerings. the choice of WA lenses for Canon with decent large aperture perfomance is extremely limited

#5 divegypsy

divegypsy

    Eagle Ray

  • Industry
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sarasota, FL

Posted 12 July 2010 - 07:40 AM

I feel that one of the main reasons for using a zoom lens is the versatility it allows. As you reduce the zoom range, in theory, the technical aspects of image sharpness and maximum aperture can be improved. Carried to the extreme, all you would use are fixed focal length lenses.

You would lose the chance to shoot a lot of subjects, if for instance, you dove with a fixed 18mm lens on a FX camera vs a 14-24mm f2.8 or a 16mm-35mm f4 or a 17mm-35mm f2.8.

And quite frankly, I have seen nothing from any independent manufacturer, except perhaps Zeiss, that makes me feel I would be getting gains in image quality to justify foregoing the versatility AND image quality of those three Nikon zoom lenses, two of which also have an f2.8 maximum aperture. My Nikon 14mm-24mm zoom, at 14mm, is clearly superior to a Sigma 14mm f2.8 I have and in my opinion, slightly better than my Nikon 14mm f2.8.

Fred