Good Revival Review or Re-Review if you will, one thing to consider is how long this lens stayed in production, replaced by the Opera version now. It stayed in production because the demand was there, the demand was there because it was popular, it was popular for 2 main reasons; price and results, even with the downside of the filter issue, It performs optimum at 20mm. It’s more close focus oriented and for near subjects, but it does well with infinite details. I have an image posted on Google Maps, in St. Louis County, Missouri at the Columbia Bottoms Conservation Area it is a sunflower up close with a field of sunflowers in the background if you care to view it there…..530,000 others have. What good is DXo, opinions of Pros, or anyone when an image is capable of achieving a great popularity among the viewers? I don’t have any following, tags, groups, or some plan figured out to accomplish gaining views, I’m a hermit socially. I posted it in photos for a location on Google Maps, over 500,000 people viewed it. Which would you rather have, what everyone tells you you should have or what you know you want?
I’ll take fame, the most common sin over conformity any day
Mind over matter, you make the lens the lens does not make anything …don’t cower to a machine
Jarrod Davis
February 13, 2018 9:02 pm
I have to say the pictures with this lens are outstanding. I was looking for a little bit more cost effective lens for my D3s and this one seems to be outstanding.
Shoeb Matin
December 20, 2017 10:38 pm
I review the Tokina (16-28mm) and Tamron (15-30mm) Can any one tell me which one better . I am little bit Confuse . It will be help me to buy best lens .
Steve w
May 22, 2017 10:09 pm
The Tokina 11-16 and 16-28 are great lenses and terrific value for money. I think people forget how much more important it is to find and compose a compelling photograph. Equipment is obviously crucial, however even having the most superlative gear money can buy is no guarantee of taking a great shot. The 16-28 (I have both Tokina lenses) flares easily if you point it directly into the sun, however most wide angle lenses will flare under those circumstances. The 11-16 is actually less prone to flare, however it has a UV filter. I’ve owned both lenses for years and have no hesitation in recommending them. Here’s another shot taken of the Sydney Harbour Bridge with a Nikon D810 and Tokina 16-28. Note that the individual lights on the bridge cause mini lens flares, however it was raining at the time and the air was full of mist. Apart from it’s optical qualities, it’s actually a beautifully build lens.
The Tokina 11-16 and 16-28 are great lenses and terrific value for money. I think people forget how much more important it is to find and compose a compelling photograph. Equipment is obviously crucial, however even having the most superlative gear money can buy is no guarantee of taking a great shot. The 16-28 (I have both Tokina lenses) flares easily if you point it directly into the sun, however most wide angle lenses will flare under those circumstances. The 11-16 is actually less prone to flare, however it has a UV filter. I’ve owned both lenses for years and have no hesitation in recommending them.
Acutol
December 18, 2016 7:53 pm
Nobody seems to review the Nikon 17-35 any more, but that would seem to be a clear competitor here and still gets good reviews. Any thoughts?
pcpc
July 23, 2016 3:30 pm
I get it. Nikon generally speaking performs better. That mean it is reliable. But if you put the cost into account, Tokina will be a good choice in value for money. Nikon is not going to outperform Tokina 80% but the costs is. I am saying if cost is not counted, review is not complete. Jaremiah’s comment is not valid because 1. HIs saying Tokina is a bad lense based on maybe 5% of the case photos of flare is taken at night. And there is possibly get around. 2. Cost is not taken into account. It is like comparing a Toyota Yaris with Maserati Grand Tourismo. Maserati always outperform Yaris but with the maintenance costs each year, it is going to be enough to buy another Yairs.
Steve Weir
June 11, 2016 3:54 pm
I’ve owned this lens for a while now. I really like it. Of course, I wanted the Nikon 14-24, however I picked this up for about $500 used. A lot of equipment decisions are made out of budget considerations, but with the 16-28 I don’t feel it’s lacking anything, except the ability to go a little wider and take filters. Here is one of my shots
The Tokina on the face of it seems like a great price comped to the canon and nikon offerings at 16-30ish mm . But jeez just too many bad reviews for me to consider getting it. Im satisfied with the Tamron 15-30.
Mark D
January 15, 2016 12:18 pm
I purchased a copy of this lens on FleBay tas a factory re furbished lens. There is a seller who either works for kenko USA or has a contact there. So far for general Photography it has been great. Focus is tack sharp and the lens performs well. I have NOT used it for night photo’s but I guess my Nikkor 24 f/1.8G will be used for that. Overall I am pleased with the lens for the sub $500.00 price
Good Revival Review or Re-Review if you will, one thing to consider is how long this lens stayed in production, replaced by the Opera version now. It stayed in production because the demand was there, the demand was there because it was popular, it was popular for 2 main reasons;
price and results, even with the downside of the filter issue, It performs optimum at 20mm. It’s more close focus oriented and for near subjects, but it does well with infinite details. I have an image posted on Google Maps, in St. Louis County, Missouri at the Columbia Bottoms Conservation Area it is a sunflower up close with a field of sunflowers in the background if you care to view it there…..530,000 others have. What good is DXo, opinions of Pros, or anyone when an image is capable of achieving a great popularity among the viewers? I don’t have any following, tags, groups, or some plan figured out to accomplish gaining views, I’m a hermit socially. I posted it in photos for a location on Google Maps, over 500,000 people viewed it.
Which would you rather have, what everyone tells you you should have or what you know you want?
I’ll take fame, the most common sin over conformity any day
Mind over matter, you make the lens the lens does not make anything …don’t cower to a machine
I have to say the pictures with this lens are outstanding. I was looking for a little bit more cost effective lens for my D3s and this one seems to be outstanding.
I review the Tokina (16-28mm) and Tamron (15-30mm) Can any one tell me which one better . I am little bit Confuse . It will be help me to buy best lens .
The Tokina 11-16 and 16-28 are great lenses and terrific value for money. I think people forget how much more important it is to find and compose a compelling photograph. Equipment is obviously crucial, however even having the most superlative gear money can buy is no guarantee of taking a great shot. The 16-28 (I have both Tokina lenses) flares easily if you point it directly into the sun, however most wide angle lenses will flare under those circumstances. The 11-16 is actually less prone to flare, however it has a UV filter. I’ve owned both lenses for years and have no hesitation in recommending them.
Here’s another shot taken of the Sydney Harbour Bridge with a Nikon D810 and Tokina 16-28. Note that the individual lights on the bridge cause mini lens flares, however it was raining at the time and the air was full of mist. Apart from it’s optical qualities, it’s actually a beautifully build lens.
www.flickr.com/photo…ed-public/
The Tokina 11-16 and 16-28 are great lenses and terrific value for money. I think people forget how much more important it is to find and compose a compelling photograph. Equipment is obviously crucial, however even having the most superlative gear money can buy is no guarantee of taking a great shot. The 16-28 (I have both Tokina lenses) flares easily if you point it directly into the sun, however most wide angle lenses will flare under those circumstances. The 11-16 is actually less prone to flare, however it has a UV filter. I’ve owned both lenses for years and have no hesitation in recommending them.
Nobody seems to review the Nikon 17-35 any more, but that would seem to be a clear competitor here and still gets good reviews. Any thoughts?
I get it. Nikon generally speaking performs better. That mean it is reliable. But if you put the cost into account, Tokina will be a good choice in value for money. Nikon is not going to outperform Tokina 80% but the costs is. I am saying if cost is not counted, review is not complete. Jaremiah’s comment is not valid because 1. HIs saying Tokina is a bad lense based on maybe 5% of the case photos of flare is taken at night. And there is possibly get around. 2. Cost is not taken into account. It is like comparing a Toyota Yaris with Maserati Grand Tourismo. Maserati always outperform Yaris but with the maintenance costs each year, it is going to be enough to buy another Yairs.
I’ve owned this lens for a while now. I really like it. Of course, I wanted the Nikon 14-24, however I picked this up for about $500 used. A lot of equipment decisions are made out of budget considerations, but with the 16-28 I don’t feel it’s lacking anything, except the ability to go a little wider and take filters. Here is one of my shots
www.flickr.com/photo…ed-public/
The Tokina on the face of it seems like a great price comped to the canon and nikon offerings at 16-30ish mm . But jeez just too many bad reviews for me to consider getting it. Im satisfied with the Tamron 15-30.
I purchased a copy of this lens on FleBay tas a factory re furbished lens. There is a seller who either works for kenko USA or has a contact there. So far for general Photography it has been great. Focus is tack sharp and the lens performs well. I have NOT used it for night photo’s but I guess my Nikkor 24 f/1.8G will be used for that. Overall I am pleased with the lens for the sub $500.00 price