# Tokina AT-X 11-16 f/2.8 PRO DX Ⅱ Lens Announced



## AprilForever (Jan 26, 2012)

Just saw this on The Digital Picture:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=1855

What do y'all think?

I need to get me either the new one or the old one, been making excuses far too long...


----------



## unfocused (Jan 26, 2012)

Whoa! Am I doing this calculation right: $90,000 yen = $1,153?

Sigma typically lists outrageously inflated MSRP, but I didn't think Tokina did. Or maybe things are just more expensive in Japan?

Anyway, it says the new lens won't be out in a Canon mount until July. Can you wait that long? 

Test reports have identified chromatic aberration as an issue with the 11-16 so it would be nice if they could reduce that. Although I have to say I've never noticed an unusual amount in real life. I am very, very fond of my 11-16 and have never found its supposed flaws to be a problem. Some people complain about distortion, but it seems to me that if your shooting an ultrawide, you ought to expect some distortion and, in fact, that's half the fun.

I'd probably see what the real street price is going to be and decide then, but it doesn't sound to me like the improvements are that significant.


----------



## Policar (Jan 26, 2012)

Same MSRP as the original. The street price will probably start higher, though?

The two main complaints with the original seem to be the flares (I shoot video so I LOVE flares, but for stills they're annoying) and excessive CA. A new coating means a reduction in flares (in theory), not a big deal for me personally... But if the use of ULD glass (though they claim it's the same optical design) means the CA is reduced, that's a big deal as it solves this lens' big weakness.

A local store has one of these "like new" for $550. Adorama has them for $610 after rebate. I was very close to buying one today. Now I'm having second thoughts. The fact that 99% of what's shot with this lens seems to be terrible HDR made me not want to buy one for the longest time, but ultrawide is so much more fun than telephoto.


----------



## willrobb (Jan 26, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Whoa! Am I doing this calculation right: $90,000 yen = $1,153?
> 
> Sigma typically lists outrageously inflated MSRP, but I didn't think Tokina did. Or maybe things are just more expensive in Japan?
> 
> ...



With the exchange rate making the yen strong the prices here seem a lot higher compared to the US (but still slightly cheaper than the UK). Saying that though, once the lens has been out a short time I am sure the price in Japan will drop a decent amount... the S100 came out at 55'000 yen, I got mine for 42'000 yen a month after it's release.


----------



## funkboy (Jan 26, 2012)

One of the things I really like about Tokina is that their designs tend to be very good at the things that are difficult/impossible to correct for in post, and concentrate less on things like chromatic aberration & barrel distortion that can easily be compensated for with a lens profile.

The existing 11-16 is already very good. I made a Lightroom preset for it that corrects CA that pretty much takes care of the problem.

If the translation is correct & they're making all these improvements, the new one should be approaching L-grade territory...


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 26, 2012)

flare was an problem with my 11-16mm tokina.

the canon 10-22mm is way better in controlling flare.

sharpness and of course f2.8 speak for the tokina.
thought i never used f2.8 with it. most shots i made are with f8 or higher.


----------



## docfrance (Jan 26, 2012)

Really surprising... I'm no pro, but I've been extremely impressed by my 11-16 since I bought it almost 3 years ago. I certainly can't imagine an improvement that would justify trading up, but any improvement on this already great lens could help Tokina attract more customers.


----------



## Gothmoth (Jan 26, 2012)

docfrance said:


> Really surprising... I'm no pro, but I've been extremely impressed by my 11-16 since I bought it almost 3 years ago. I certainly can't imagine an improvement that would justify trading up, but any improvement on this already great lens could help Tokina attract more customers.




well flare and CA´s are definitely a problem with the old model.
maybe some will not notice that but it´s obvious when you compare images.


----------



## AcinonyxJG (Jan 26, 2012)

Sounds alright to me, ¥90,000 is just over £700, although the first model is now around £4-500, I was going to try and buy the first one, but should I wait that little bit longer and get the second version? Bearing in mind that I probably won't be able to buy it the same time it comes out, probably a couple of months afterwards, so the price might drop.


----------



## justsomedude (Jan 27, 2012)

This is the most exciting CR news I've seen in ages. I'm actually more excited about this rumor than a 5D mkiii. Why - you may ask? I had terrible auto-focus issues with the Tokina 11-16 on my 7D, going so far as to get Tokina to admit it was a real issue. Which they finally did, almost... check my blog post on this issue:

http://www.akphotodenver.com/2011/06/14/tokina-acknowledges-pairing-issue-with-11-16mm-f2-8-lens-and-canon-7d/

If a true update is in the mix, I'll be looking to pick one up as soon as it drops. Tokina's 11-16 ultra-wide is legendary, I just want all the AF points to work. Granted, I typically use it in manual focus mode, but a lens should be compatibale with all of a body's focus options.

Just my %0.02.


----------



## ions (Feb 15, 2012)

I recently bought a Canon 10-22 to replace my Tokina because of the issues being addressed in the 11-16 Mk II. I never found the CA to be all that bad, it exists but is easily correctible. I also found the focus to be somewhat slow. The 10-22 I picked up does focus faster. I don't know if that is related to justsomedude's observations or the speed of the lens but it was also tolerable. What I could no longer deal with was the flare. It flares when you point it at the moon! The moon! Although I have taken some of my favourite shots with the Tokina I've had just as many shots ruined with horrible flare that proved very difficult and time consuming to remove. In my experience the Tokina is definitely sharper than the 10-22. If the sharpness is maintained and the issues fixed I would certainly consider the Tokina again.


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 16, 2012)

I've been very pleased with my 11-16, and don't think the CA and flare are any worse than other wide angles I've got.
While I mainly use manual focus with it, as most shots I use it for are on a tripod, it has so much DOF, I wouldn't worry about the faster focussing of the new model.

I have used it handheld indoors, and while the focussing is not as fast as some of my L lenses, it's quite fast enough and quite accurate too.


----------



## ions (Feb 16, 2012)

Focusing is important if you want to use that 2.8 creatively. Pet/creative portraiture is one of the largely untapped uses of this lens since most people view it solely as a landscape lens. Doing that also lets them dismiss the lenses flaws a bit easier since those flaws don't apply to them.




Kimi's 5th Birthday! German Shepherd Dog by Christopher Brian's Photography, on Flickr

I haven't tried a shot like this with the Canon 10-22 yet but I'm presuming that because of the smaller variable aperture a shot like this is going to be harder to get if not impossible with that level of DOF. Though, the closer minimum focus distance of the 10-22 may help. I forgot my point here... oh yeah, fast focus! This shot took several tries because of the slowish focus of my 11-16 and the subject's unwillingness to cooperate. Yet, because of the 2.8 I was able to get it.


----------



## lolage (Jun 19, 2012)

Any update?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 22, 2012)

Haven't noticed this with my copy, however I bought mine after my 7D, maybe something had been changed, also, I don't really use AF with this lens, prefering the focus scale and live view, maybe a thing with UWAs? I shoot video a lot with it and for that purpose cannot rate it highly enough.


----------



## xps (Jun 26, 2012)

*Re: Tokina AT-X 11-16 f/2.8 PRO DX Ⅱ Lens Announced - Statement*

Read online at: http://www.thkphoto.com/news/press/N0000015/



> "For Immediate Release
> June 25, 2012
> 
> The New Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II is an update to the widely popular and award winning AT-X 116 PRO DX, 11-16 F/2.8 lens.
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 29, 2012)

xps said:


> Read online at: http://www.thkphoto.com/news/press/N0000015/


Good news! Since I will keep on dual-shooting with my aps-c even if I have a ff body, I think I'll get this one. With f2.8, the large dof of an ultrawide plus slow required shutter speeds, these should only need low iso values with Canon's 18mp sensor.

I hope it doesn't take too long for the high list price of Tokina to drop to a saner level... and we'll see if Tokina is faster than Canon when it comes to actually shipping announced products :-o

However: even Tamron claims only "lightly improved optical performance" and "Other than the optical coating change there are no changes to the Canon mount" ... does this mean it's more flare resistant than the mk1 model? Or is this just a waste of money in comparison to a cheaper mk1 model?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 29, 2012)

If you have a decent Nikon (D7000 up) you would be better with the expensive version. If you use canon and are prepared to do a little work in PS (create a lens profile) then go for the older version. I use it and am delighted with it. The corners need defringing more as you stop down, but no biggie.

As a video lens, it's peerless as nobody else offers a fast UWA for cropped sensor bodies.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 29, 2012)

Interesting, Might replace my 10-22mm after all.


----------



## Wilmark (Jun 29, 2012)

Interesting, i used the original on my 7d with great results - good for timelapse and video. When i moved to 5Dmk3, the lens can only be used at 16mm as vignetting occurs wider than this, still not bad though, as i found the zoom range even on the 7d to be hardly useful. 16mm on FF may be more like 11mm i guess.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 29, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Interesting, Might replace my 10-22mm after all.



I'd get the Tokina over the Canon, too - but it's a little letdown that the mk2 version for Canon seems to be not even face-lifted, but just with new coating.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Jun 29, 2012)

Whilst the benefits of a better coating should never be underestimated (more of the wrong light reflected away, more of the good light let through) the positive side is that the cheaper mk1 remains excellent value..

I actually had a bit of bother getting hold of one, and so can only imagine that the used value, should I ever part with it, should be a good proportion of it's new value.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 29, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, Might replace my 10-22mm after all.
> ...



But the 10-22mm has almost no distortion. :'( It'd be hard to part with w/o renting the tokina first.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 29, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> But the 10-22mm has almost no distortion. :'( It'd be hard to part with w/o renting the tokina first.



If you rent it, please let us know your findings - I'd be very interested since you seem to be very specific about the lenses you use. But everything I've read about the Tokina is very favorable (it's nearly a prime lens with the tiny zoom range), it's f2.8, it's very sharp and while Canon might be better the little distortion is simple to correct in post.


----------

