Landscape lens

[carloshpvp]

I've just found this topic and have similar doubt. I currently have a D7000 and would like to add a wide angle zoom to the set in the hope of using it mainly for landscape photography (However, I found myself using the telephoto zoom for landscape more often then the normal one lately). After reading some reviews on the internet, I've narrowed down my list to the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and 12-24 f/4 lenses. Some doubts remain and I'm sure your inputs will be very helpful as usual:

- Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens is recognized as a very good wide angle zoom for cropped sensors. As the f/2.8 wouldn't be so important for landscape, the 12-24 f/4 would for sure do the job well, having a more versatile focal length range. Would the optics of the 11-16 be so much better that justified the price difference between both? Or the f/2.8 be a valuable option to have for ocasions of indoor photos?

- The 11-16mm f/2.8 lens currently has two versions, having the II built-in focus motor for entry-level Nikon cameras plus a coating that should help against flares. As long as I have a camera with built-in motor, would the benefit from this coat justify the extra US$ 100,00 in terms of US price.

Thanks a lot,

[William W]

. . .Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens is recognized as a very good wide angle zoom for cropped sensors. As the f/2.8 wouldn't be so important for landscape, the 12-24 f/4 would for sure do the job well, having a more versatile focal length range. Would the optics of the 11-16 be so much better that justified the price difference between both? Or the f/2.8 be a valuable option to have for ocasions of indoor photos?

One cannot merely isolate the category as "indoor" photos as a criterion to make your choice.

The other considerations are for indoor shooting and the consideration of the usefulness of lens with 1 faster stop and no lens stabilization, are:

What is the limit of ISO you wish to push?
Will there be Subjects Moving?
Will there be Flash to use when Subjects are Moving?
If there are no Subjects Moving - will there be a tripod?


WW

[Manfred M]

I have the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm and frankly, while I do use it for landscapes, I initially bought it for interior architectural shots. I find that ultra-wide angle lenses are amongst the more difficult lenses to shoot with, just because it is very easy to produce an pretty mediocre image if you are off by just a cm or two when composing. It is all to easy to end up with an image that is too much foreground and too much sky. One has to get something of interest into the frame to help balance out the frame. For example:



One can do a pure landscape shot, but again, something has to anchor the shot; for instance, looking down into the Viti crater allows me to do this with this lens:




Of course, this is the type of shot I was thinking of when I bought the lens in the first place. In spite of being in a fairly crowded room in the Louvre, I was able to compose in such a way that it looks like I am almost alone with the Mona Lisa.




Why did I go with this lens rather than the f/4 12-24mm; because the extra stop and the extra mm (around 5 degrees wider view) were worth it to me.

[William W]

Why did I go with this lens rather than the f/4 12-24mm; because the extra stop and the extra mm (around 5 degrees wider view) were worth it to me.

+1 this is also an important consideration.

WW

[William W]

Off Topic and begging indulgence of the OP - one of my interpretations was:


"The Moaning of Lisa"

WW

[carloshpvp]

Thanks Bill and Manfred! After reading this topic, other useful information over the internet and even realising that I don't go that wide on landscape photography, the f/2.8 will be very useful for indoor (low light, tight space, no flash allowed, etc.) as the extra 5°.

Would anyone have information about the coating that Tokina added to the version II of the 11-16mm lens?

[Manfred M]

Would anyone have information about the coating that Tokina added to the version II of the 11-16mm lens?

When looking at the two lenses on the Tokina website, it sounds like they have updated their anti-reflective coating process. It really doesn't sound like a significant upgrade as their website states; i.e. something incremental rather than revolutionary: "There have also been some adjustments made to the coating for slightly improved optical performance."

This is my take, much like Bill's shot in the Louvre of the room with the Mona Lisa. We were there on a weekday in March, so the crowds were not overwhelming, but shooting ultra-wide makes the room look busier than it really was. Both shots I posted were taken a few moments apart.

[carloshpvp]

Thank you one more time! There are still a couple of months left to make the decision. Meanwhile, I'll try to figure out which version to take.

[Manfred M]

Carlos - I have the old version, that requires the camera to use the focus motor. In fact one of the reasons I went with the D90 was that it had this and I would be able to shoot older style lenses (I have 4 of these). Being wide angle, the focus is fairly quick and from a mechanical standpoint, a lens without the built-in focusing motor has less to go wrong. Focusing is snappy and fast; and frankly is really not all that noisy)

The newer version does have the advantages of the internal focusing motor and the new coating.

A couple of interesting facts about the lens; it is highly sought after for the video market and Duclos has been remanufacturing this lens for the video market: http://www.ducloslenses.com/collections/duclos .



I also understand that Tokina introduced their own cine version at the 2013 NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) show.



Essentially this means it is fit with the external gearing for follow-focus and has the click stops removed on the aperture adjustment.

It's a great lens to shoot video with and I do use it on my Panasonic AF100. I use a Nikon F-mount to mFT adaptor and this picture shows it on the camera.

[carloshpvp]

Manfred, thanks again for sharing your experienci with the lens. Could you please add any comment on the focus clutch of the lens? How easy is to use manual focus if needed?

[RustBeltRaw]

I also understand that Tokina introduced their own cine version at the 2013 NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) show.

Why does removing the aperture click-stops and focus motor, plus adding gear teeth to the aperture and focus rings bump the price from $570 to "under $2,000?" Do people simply expect cine lenses to be pricier, so they can get away with it, or is that a reflection of Tokina's actual investment in the cine-adapted lens design?

[Manfred M]

Manfred, thanks again for sharing your experienci with the lens. Could you please add any comment on the focus clutch of the lens? How easy is to use manual focus if needed?

Pull the focus ring toward the front lens element and you are in autofocus mode, pull it back toward the camera and you are in manual focus mode. There is a click as it nests into either position. Yes, it is quite easy to focus manually, but frankly the FoV is so wide that things are in focus anyhow. The focus distance is perhaps 1/4 - 1/3 turn which is not fantastic (not like the old manual lenses that had a lot more travel and made focusing so much easier), but certainly no worse than any other modern autofocus lens.

I find that the real issue in getting a good manual focus is more related to the quality of the camera's focus screen. The ones they put in DLSRs are not great for manual focusing at the best of times.

[Manfred M]

Why does removing the aperture click-stops and focus motor, plus adding gear teeth to the aperture and focus rings bump the price from $570 to "under $2,000?" Do people simply expect cine lenses to be pricier, so they can get away with it, or is that a reflection of Tokina's actual investment in the cine-adapted lens design?

I haven't seen or used one, but in general cine lenses also have a much longer focus throw than on a still lens, which gives the camera operator a much finer focus. I expect that the basic mechanical components are different too, from the still lens. The reason that these lenses are so expensive is that they make relatively few of them and the design and tooling costs have to be amortized over a much smaller production run. Some of the manufacturing steps are going to be a bit more costly as well.

[RustBeltRaw]

Some of the manufacturing steps are going to be a bit more costly as well.

The video did mention an all-metal body, so it sounds like they redid everything but the optics.

...much longer focus throw than on a still lens, which gives the camera operator a much finer focus.

I'd cheerfully pay 15-20% more for increased manual focus granularity on each of my lenses. But not ~340% more (difference between still and cine Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lenses), and definitely not ~950% more (Canon 70-200mm f2.8L vs. Carl Zeiss 70-200mm T2.9).

Doesn't change the fact that the Zeiss 70-200m T2.9 is probably the sexiest lens on today's market.

[Manfred M]

I strongly suspect that this is not going to be a super hot mover, hence the cost. Just look at the daily rental prices for a set of cine primes:

http://www.abelcine.com/store/35mm-Prime-Lenses/

These things put the purchaser back some pretty serious cash. Cine lenses are very expensive, and yes, the glass is sometimes reused from standard lenses, but the mechanical elements are totally redone.