Why the 5mm?

[zm15]

So, please forgive since I'm relatively new to photography and am still working on understanding everything.

I recently came across the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 lens. And I was wondering, why even bother with those 5mm? It would appear that the zoom is so short that it wouldn't matter.

Any explanation for a greenhorn would be appreciated

 

[Iscariot]

No reason I can think of other than. Perhaps tamron felt that there could be situations where the tog cannot move their feet and those 5mm might be enough to help them get the shot they need?

There are probably technical build reasons do to with image quality etc to explain why there its such a small range.

 

[io_bg]

Those 5mm still can make a difference, though I mostly shoot at 11mm.

 

[slakelives]

Isn't it a lens for crop cameras? In which case it is approximately 16-24mm - in that way it sounds more reasonable, running from ultra-wide to simply wide-angle and giving more flexibility than a prime.

Typically, although it isn't always the case and is sometimes more complicated, lens perform at their worst at the extremes, so those 18-270mm lenses don't tend to be very good at 18mm or 270mm etc. By choosing a fairly limited range I assume Tokina managed to avoid some optical quality issues and the lens in question indeed has a good reputation.

 

[Joseph]

5mm is a LOT on the short end. On the long end, even 50mm isn't much.

 

[bargainguy]

The quality gap between zooms and primes isn't as wide as it once was. In a zoom, 11-16mm doesn't seem like a large amount but requires a more complex optical design than a prime to achieve acceptable levels of spherical and chromatic aberration while maintaining resolution and contrast. The best SWA zooms tend to be the best corrected as well - and the most pricey. The Nikkor 14-24 comes to mind.

Everything else being equal, to get the best possible quality, I'd opt for separate primes, but not everyone wants to go this route. Hence the seeming proliferation of SWA zooms.

 

[MParker]

Each mm gives a bigger FOV than you might imagine. On a DX camera each degree increment from 16mm to 11mm is about 3.5 degrees or so of FOV wider. That's huge at, say, 100 yards. On a full frame DSLR it is much more of course.

 

[donski]

I had the Tokina 11-16 and I can tell you there is a noticeable difference. :smile:

 

[kixsand]

Once you try the lens it makes sense.

The viewing angle is basically 82 degrees out to a whopping 104 degrees - big difference.

When I had it 99% of the pictures I took with it were at 11mm.

 

[Aleksey]

5mm is a LOT on the short end. On the long end, even 50mm isn't much.

That!
I would prefer high quality WA zoom to prime because you can frame your shot better and have less distortion is you don't need to go your widest for particular picture. Ofcourse you can use wide prime and crop as needed, but WA primes are few and mostly old. I think modern WA zooms can give them run for the money. IMHO

 

[kixsand]

And 11-16 mm is a range of 6mm, not 5...

 

[sir oliver]

16mm vs 11mm is 45% increase in focal length.
At these FLs, this is pretty much.

Not as much range as, say, 24-70mm (292% FL increase) or 70-200mm (286% FL increase), but ultra wide angles are complex to design, especially at f/2.8 aperture.

Just for a reference, compare it with Nikkor 14-24mm (another f/2.8 UWA zoom, another short range, FX of course, but check the price, size and weight).

To make it short, both Tok11-16/2.8 and Nik14-24/2.8 would be a lot bigger and more expensive, if the FL range was bigger.

 

[zm15]

Things make alot more sense to me now. Thanks everyone for your insight!!

 

[bigshot]

Zoom range is different at the wide end than at the long end. 200 to 205 is nothing at all. 11 to 16 is a broader range.

 

[CastIron]

An inch of body height isn't much, unless of course you're talking about ants.

And 11-16 mm is a range of 6mm, not 5...

If one of those ants walks straight from the 0 to the 12 on a ruler, it walks 12 inches, not 13.