byjoe Loc: Stillwater, OK

I guess I should add that I have no experience with Nikon as I shoot Canon, but do love the lens.

ricardo00

Yep a lot depends on what you want to use it for! If trying to shoot at night (ie. aurora, night sky, etc), one might want at least f/2.8 or even faster glass! I bought the 11-16mm and was glad I got this wide since on my DX camera (the D7100) I could barely get as much of the sky as I wanted.

(Download)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 came in two versions.... The original in Nikon mount does not have a built-in focus drive motor, so it WILL NOT be able to autofocus on a D5600. It will be manual focus only on all D3000-series and D5000-series Nikon. (To be able to AF, this version of the lens requires D7000-series or higher models that have a focus drive motor in the camera body.)

The 11-16mm f/2.8 "II" version in Nikon mount has a built-in motor, even though discontinued is still available new for $469. This version IS able to autofocus on all Nikon DX cameras.

Both 11-16mm have been discontinued and superseded by the Tokina AT-X Pro 11-20mm f/2.8 DX ($564), which only comes in one Nikon mount version that's able to autofocus on all Nikon DX cameras.

The 11-16mm lenses are very sharp and are the only DX ultrawide offering an f/2.8 aperture. This has made them quite popular for astrophotography, night photography and a few other purposes. HOWEVER, they have a very narrow range of focal lengths (only 5mm) AND are quite prone to flare problems. I've known several photographers who found the flare unacceptable and ended up exchanging for another lens.

Reportedly the newer 11-20mm lens largely solves both problems... Obviously it offers a much better range of focal lengths and all reviews I've seen say it's far less prone to flare (I haven't used it personally). It is a bit more expensive (currently $564 after mail-in rebate) and a little larger (uses an 82mm filter, for example... while most other ultrawides use 77mm, and a couple recently introduced compact models use 67mm).

Now, most people using ultrawides don't actually need f.2.8. In fact, with this type lens you will more typically find yourself stopping down for great depth of field, to get sharpness from your toes to infinity. Plus, these short focal lengths are pretty easily hand held, also making a larger aperture less important. There are any number of ultrawides with slower apertures that allow them to be a bit smaller, lighter, less expensive and possibly less prone to flare or better corrected in other ways. Tokina themselves made a 12-24mm f/4 DX (in Nikon mount, with the same original and "II" versions as noted above) and more recently superseded that with a AT-X 12-28mm f/4 DX ($450).

Nikon themselves also have very recently announced a "bargain" AF-P DX Nikkor 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR that will sell for $306. It's not yet in stores (expected delivery June 29) and there aren't any in-depth reviews of it online. It looks to be rather plasticky, but is compact and lightweight (67mm filter). It has VR and is certainly a lot more attractively priced than the older Nikkor AF-S DX 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G at nearly $900 or the Nikkor AF-S DX 12-24mm f/4G at $1150!

There also is the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 DC HSM, another rather large, heavy ultrawide using an 82mm filter, selling currently for $450.

Sigma also offers the widest of the wide, an 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM (about $700). Now, such an extreme wide angle has some effect on images (i.e., heavy barrel distortion and lots of perspective exaggeration). It also has some compatibility limitations on certain Nikon cameras. It's said to work fine on D5000, D5100, D5200... but requires special handling to use on D5300. There's no info on later D5000-series models, so you should check with Sigma about using it on D5600, if interested in this lens. The Sigma 8-16mm also has a protruding, strongly convex front element that prevents using standard filters on it.

Sigma also makes a 12-24mm lens, but this is actually a "DG" or full frame-capable model. As such, it would be a very pricey ultrawide to only use on a DX camera, where you won't get any benefit from the FX capability.

Tamron has long offered a 10-24mm "Di II" lens... IMO, the older version had somewhat "so so" image quality. There's a new version with image stabilization added, an upgraded focus drive system, a different optical formula and aperture that's been improved with curved blades (for a more rounded opening). I haven't used it and really don't know how it compares, but if you're interested it might be worth researching and is selling for $500 (same price as the older model).

Jim Bob

Extraordinary lens unbeatable for the price. Check the details in these images shot with that lens.

(Download)


(Download)

Jim Bob

Not at that price. I would rate it much higher than "middle-of-the-pack. Although one might legitimately call me biased, I would say the photos I posted in this thread are better than middle-of-the-pack. But what do I know?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, you do tend to be biased - with what you own ......seems we all have that tendency ! As a fast zoom it is pretty good - the better ones I used it against are primes.

mrpentaxk5ii

I use a Pentax 12-24 F4, it works great. I tend to use it in the 12mm end for the most part. I use a Sigma 17-70mm F 2.8-4.5 on a second body.

ricardo00

Funny, I aways think the opposite, that if I just had a different lens (faster, longer, etc) I could get a better pic! When I bought the 11-16 Tokina f/2.8 Pro DX II lens in 2013, there weren't so many options as now. Not sure what I would buy now. It is nice to have the wider option of this lens but the f/2 would help on some night shots. For example, when trying to get a photo of this moving polar bear, I wanted a shorter exposure but needed the longer exposure to get enough light so the f/2 would have been nice. I ended up trying to paint the polar bear with a flashlight. Not the sharpest details on the bear.

Jim Bob

I call junk junk whether I own it or not. In that way I am different from most posters on this site and I thank God for this gift of independence. I make a sustained effort to avoid buying junk in the first place, especially when it comes to camera bodies and lenses. I don't think comparing primes presents a level playing field. More persuasive would be a comparison with similar zooms. However, I will confess that in some (perhaps many) situations primes are the standard by which all lenses should be judged.

If you take a careful look at the images I posted you can see tremendous lens acuity, detail and sharpness. On the boat for example there is a box or chest toward the opposite end of the boat. You can actually read the writing on it. Check the details in the rug, chairs and room in general on the inside shot. Then come back and tell me this is middle-of-the-pack quality.

bobgreen Loc: Maryland

Great capture! Terrific

ricardo00

Thanks Bob!

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

If these are middle of the pack, then I am all in. I want to be middle of the pack with results like these. Saving for one of these for my D7200.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Great, sharp images " from my toes to infinity" focus!
However when I am asked to respond to a request about a particular piece of kit I own, preference must be assumed.