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

[optizz]

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!

 

[Lance B]

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.

 

[truronion]

Go for the nikon you will never regret it.

 

[jr1966]

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.

 

[britinjapan]

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)

 

[optizz]

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!

 

[eninety]

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.