Tokina lens

NWgaz

NWgaz

Suspended / Banned
Messages
518
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
No
I am looking at a tokina 11-16 f2.8 lens for portraits, has anyone got any reservations about this lens

thanks
 
Hi Gary,

It is a strange lens choice for portraits. You could get some very distorted features using this lens eg. big noses, long faces etc. I think if it's main use is portraits i would look for something like a canon 50mm f1.4 or a canon 85mm f1.8. Main use for wide angles is landscape photography.

Sorry Gary i just noticed you have a Nikon camera but i'm sure they have the same lenses 50mm and 85mm. Have a look at this link.

http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/best-portrait-lens.html
 
Last edited:
Thankyou scott for your reply, the link was informative, I think the 50mm 1.8 looks the job, by getting the 11-16 I was trying to kill 2 birds with one stone so to speak, didnt enter my head about distortion.

thanks again

gaz
 
the 50mm 1.8 will not autofocus on your D40x, but will on your D90.

Another one to look at that is a bit wider is the 35mm 1.8, that will autofocus on both your cameras.
 
I had a Tokina 12-24mm before and can't say I was impressed with IQ. Was a bit soft and no "Snap" in colours/contrast. It was however, very cheap though. I guess you get what you paid for.
 
As a landscape lens the Tokina 11-16mm is up there with the nest of them, it really is a cracking lens but I could never even consider it for portraits. At 11mm on a DX camera you could get a full length portrait of someone standing about 18 inches in front of you but there would be so much distortion they'd look awful.

For portraits you want to look at something in the 50mm range.
 
11-16mm is a bit onorthodox for traditional portraiture but for candid street work (with an editorial style - think Nat Geo etc...) then it's probably quite a useful lens thanks to the low aperture.

Of course, for creating a flatter more pleasing look then on a crop sensor a 50mm is great, although some people like 85mm for the (seemingly) decreased depth-of-field.

My view on this is that you should try before you buy, just to get a feel for what this zoom range actually looks like in use. However, photography is all about a personal interpretation and you can use whatever the hell you like.... why do the same thing everyone else does?....
 
Last edited:
Well, mine should be delivered by the end of the day so I'll let you know over the weekend. I'm doing some engagement shots for my wife's best friend, so I'll definitely try it out.

"Learning by doing" is my new way of looking at things, so I'll be off out with my 3 flashes, brollies and snoots to have some fun.:D:thumbs:
 
R.Y.K. LEE said:
I had a Tokina 12-24mm before and can't say I was impressed with IQ. Was a bit soft and no "Snap" in colours/contrast. It was however, very cheap though. I guess you get what you paid for.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. It is uber sharp on all my cameras at all settings. I would give it a red ring and an L designation.

11-16 should be even better, but no way this is good for portraits, except a one of environmental or interior shot with people in it.


If you need 2 in 1 look for 100 / 105mm macro. They are excellent.
 
daugirdas said:
I couldn't disagree more. It is uber sharp on all my cameras at all settings. I would give it a red ring and an L designation.

11-16 should be even better, but no way this is good for portraits, except a one of environmental or interior shot with people in it.


If you need 2 in 1 look for 100 / 105mm macro. They are excellent.
Click to expand...

Must have just been my copy then :D
 
thankyou for all your information it was much appreciated, I invested in the 50mm 1.8 as suggested and its a cracking lens especially for the cheap price.

my next question is the Tokina AT-X 100mm f2.8 Macro D (Nikon AF), has anyone got one of these lenses that could give me some feedback on the macro quality, it will be used for insects and other creepy crawlies

thanks again for your help

gaz
 
R.Y.K. LEE said:
Must have just been my copy then :D
Click to expand...

Must have been - my experience is much like daugirdas. So much so that despite promising myself I would sell it when I bought my GF1 I couldn't actually do it!
 
I used the 11-16mm for portraits; the odd perspectives for leading into the picture (such as someone's finger pointing in the scene) make a very very interesting portrait. Absolutely loved it as its lets you be a lot more creative that say using the boggo standard 50mm 1.4.

IQ was unparalleled.
 
My Tokina 12-24 is a cracking lens as well; Ray must have had a bad copy, I love mine, and the 24mm long end is a lot more useful than 16mm, and can at a pinch if you re careful be used for portraits though its far from ideal.
The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is a great lens for portraits or full body shots on a D90 and I ve taken some excellent shots with that combination though being lazy I tend to use a Nikon 35-70 f2.8 these days which is also excellent and about £200 second hand.
You might be a bit frustrated with a 100mm macro lens for bugs as you ll have to get pretty close to them and they tend to hide/fly off. A 150mm like the Sigma is better but more expensive and bigger. Most macro lenses are very sharp, the Tamron 90mm tends to be the one recommended at about the 100mm mark and the Sigma at 150mm.
 
Spanishphil said:
My Tokina 12-24 is a cracking lens as well; Ray must have had a bad copy, I love mine, and the 24mm long end is a lot more useful than 16mm, and can at a pinch if you re careful be used for portraits though its far from ideal.
The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is a great lens for portraits or full body shots on a D90 and I ve taken some excellent shots with that combination though being lazy I tend to use a Nikon 35-70 f2.8 these days which is also excellent and about £200 second hand.
You might be a bit frustrated with a 100mm macro lens for bugs as you ll have to get pretty close to them and they tend to hide/fly off. A 150mm like the Sigma is better but more expensive and bigger. Most macro lenses are very sharp, the Tamron 90mm tends to be the one recommended at about the 100mm mark and the Sigma at 150mm.
Click to expand...

Hmm, after hearing all of this I must say that it has relit a flame in me. I LOVED the build quality of the Tokina, felt more well made than alot of the Canons. My copy's IQ broke my heart though. I may in the near future give this lens another go, now that I am back on 1.6 crop. Thanks guys :)

Ray.
 
The IQ on my 11-16mm is cracking, the only reservation I have is a relatively noisy motor which seems the norm with these. Not sure I'd use it for portraits though, except for something creative - as a landscape lens, for the money I don't think you could go wrong.
 
my next question is the Tokina AT-X 100mm f2.8 Macro D (Nikon AF), has anyone got one of these lenses that could give me some feedback on the macro quality, it will be used for insects and other creepy crawlies
Click to expand...

The Tamron SP90 is sharper as is the nikkor 100mm macro, the Tamron is also cheaper at around the £350 mark new and also doubles as a very good longer portrait lens. (90mm = 117mm on your camera's sensor)
 
Thanks Ian for answering my second question but would it be more advisable to get the tamron 180 over the 90 with working distance only being 4 to 5 inches with the 90mm or is that adequate for insects and other flying creatures, taking into mind the big jump in price and no limiter on 180, would probably manual focus anyway

Thanks again

Gaz
 
iancandler said:
The Tamron SP90 is sharper as is the nikkor 100mm macro, the Tamron is also cheaper at around the £350 mark new and also doubles as a very good longer portrait lens. (90mm = 117mm on your camera's sensor)
Click to expand...


One problem with the Tamron is that it sounds like a pneumatic drill when focusing so either the insects have to be half deaf or dead to have any chance of getting a shot using AF - though in reality you will use MF and implement the 'rock backwards/forwards' trick.
 
Here's another entry into the fray. With a little practice with manual focusing this lens at f/1:1.4 has a very narrow D.O.F. and beautiful bokeh. I've been using it for some months now on both a Nikon D300 and Canon T2i (with focus confirmation chipped adapter).

http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/
 
I remember reading an article about that lens in this month's 'Digital Photo' - they reckon its a cracking lens for the money - just a pity it doesnt have AF.
 
and its manual metering, well it would be on mine anyhow: Manual exposure mode only on the following DSLRs: D40/D40x, D50, D60, D70/D70s, D80 or D90. With the D200, D300, D700, D3/D3x you also have the use of Aperture-priority mode.
 
Autofocus is nt a lot of use with true 1:1 or so macro, you re better off using manual focus and prefocusing the lens to the distance you want to give you the magnification you require then moving your body/camera nearer to the bug etc till you hit the focus point taking shots from just before till just after the point of focus.
The added advantage of this technique is you can combine frames to get a better depth of focus as its very tiny at true macro distances even at apertures like f16.
Id recommend a longer focal length lens every time for bugs. Does the front element extend on the Tamron 90mm? If it does its another source of bug fright, my Sigma 150mm is internal focussing so has that advantage.
If you want a macro lens to do other stuff as well then the shorter ones are generally more useful as they make good portrait lenses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top