The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is everything I want in a ultra wide, fast, sharp, next to no chromatic aberration, and relatively no distortion (this is not a fisheye lens). I wish I could say I purchased it for myself, however it's quite pricey, and at this point I can't quite justify spending that kind of money on my hobby.
I also have not compared it to the Tokina 12-24mm f4 ATX, at roughly half the price of the 11-16mm, it is another lens I would like to demo. At f2.8 the 11-16mm is a full stop faster, which is always nice to have, but the nature of ultra wide photography, Is it critical? How often would I shoot at f2.8? Does anyone ever feel the need for 2.8 at 11mm? I see myself using it mostly for landscapes, cars, and maybe interiors of homes. As such, speed is not critical, shallow DOF is not desirable, both what you get with 2.8. It's not like I would ever use it for birds in flight, where speed is crucial. So considering that, if the 12-24mm proves to be of similar optical quality. I think I just might opt for the slower lens and save my money for the 300mm 2.8. :)
The out of focus grass in the foreground was actually touching the lens hood!
No comments:
Post a Comment