Tokina atx 16-28 2.8 vs Nikon 16-35 vr2 f4

Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
30
Location
los angeles/California
Hi everybody , w/c of these lens would you buy for fx uwa? The budget will be about 900 to 1,200 usd. I will need some wide angle to use for the wedding next weekend, shots will be mostly daytime and some eves. and well lit church indoors and inside the restaurant. Thank you in advance for the advice!
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
1,558
Location
Australia
As far as I can tell from Photozone's testing, they are about on par. However, after using the 16-36 f4 VR on my trip to Europe, the VR was indispensible for those dimly lit interiors of the churches, cathedrals and castles. I was often shooting at 1/5sec, ISO3200 and f13 - to get good DOF and corner sharpness. Without VR you would have to compromise on ISO or DOF. The results I obtained were brilliant, IMO.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
124
Location
Guam
Was in the same boat. Decided to go with the Nikon. Decision was based on the focal length, meaning the Nikon can reach 35mm which lessens lens changing when I need the 35mm focal length (which, btw, is my favorite prime focal length for FX). Also the fact that the 16mm is quite distorted to the point that it is more like a semi-fisheye, therefore, can be used to make quite unusual and dramatic effects. So, a semi-fisheye to a 35mm in one lens, plus VR, nano-coating, and ability to use a UV filter to protect the lens makes this the winner for me between these two lenses.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
523
Location
Tokyo
I went for the Tokina as I wanted a F2.8. No regrets as I have a Nikon 35mm, but there is a lot of great information above to make a decision.

Waikiki 24mm 2.8

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
30
Location
los angeles/California
tokina atx 16-28 2.8

Hi thank you all for responding and a some great advices. First off, I went with the tokina coz of the 2.8 vs... I used it this weekend for the wedding, oh my! razor sharp very very happy complimented my 70-200 vr2 2.8 and 85 1.4, thank you once again!
 
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
34
Location
New York
i tested the tokina at adorama when i was deciding the same thing. Very solidly built, but again the same issue with the 14-24 vs 16-35 arises and the reason i chose the 16-35.... that bulbous front end is scary to use imo and it doesnt take filters. Circular polarizers in particular when shooting landscapes i find are key.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom