tokina 11-16 F 2.8 ATX

Anyone use this lens underwater? Rockwell praises it as an ultrawide (weitwinkel) (weitwinkel) for the D300 at least on land.

Just bought the lens and found a zoom gear for it (subal) struggling a little with diopters and vignetting - have cut the shade of a hoya +3 and still a little vignetting at 11mm. Will get it in the water for the first time next weekend - let you know then!

i've used it on my 20D in aquatica housing with 41mm extender on the dome and +2 diopter - disappointing corner sharpness. have been re-reading "dome theory" and hope to get around to figuring out where the entrance pupil is soon to see if i've got the right extender.

on land it is quite good - best at f4-f8, but the f2.8 is okay if you need it and useful for autofocus. under water i'm not sure if the difference between it and other good crop-format wide angles will be noticeable

i've used it on my 20D in aquatica housing with 41mm extender on the dome and +2 diopter - disappointing corner sharpness. have been re-reading "dome theory" and hope to get around to figuring out where the entrance pupil is soon to see if i've got the right extender.

 

on land it is quite good - best at f4-f8, but the f2.8 is okay if you need it and useful for autofocus. under water i'm not sure if the difference between it and other good crop-format wide angles will be noticeable

I think I understood Aquatica to say that they recommend the 18462 52 mm extension with the 8" dome so it sounds like you are slightly off on the extension ring. They do recommend the same zoom gear as for the Tokina 12 - 24 - the 18722. Have you tried it without the diopter?

Andy

Is this lens less curvey than the 10-17? Mine distorts too much to be of much commercial use on land and wonder if the 11-16 is any better.

Is this lens less curvey than the 10-17? Mine distorts too much to be of much commercial use on land and wonder if the 11-16 is any better.

Yep, it's far less 'curvy', as it's not a fish eye lens like the 10-17. Have a look at Photozone's review on it, where they talk about distortion.

I've used mine a good few times underwater, and so far am pretty happy with it. I've got it behind an 8" dome in my Aquatica housing, with two 18463 ex. rings (only because that's all I've got). With a +2 dioptre, corners are sharp enough, and there's no vignetting. I don't have a zoom gear for it though, generally just shoot with it at 11mm.

It's a great lens on land as well. I've got a few different filters that I use on it, and I'm quite happy with some of the results.

Ryan.

i just empiricaly tried to determine the entrance pupil/nodal point and indeed the 18462 appears to be the correct extension according to "dome theory" - i must have missed this on the aquatica site or they just recently added the 11-16 to the list. i also checked my 10-22 and it also seems to require the 18462 extension instead of the recommended 18453. the entrance pupil for both of these lenses appear to be very near the front surface of the lens and doesn't seem to move much with focal length.

no, i haven't tried it without the diopter, and haven't a clue how to decide on the diopter except by trial and error - any tips? do i have to make a trip to the swimming pool with a grid on a sheet of plastic?

off topic, how much difference, if any, does air space between a macro and flat port make? it looks like the 18462 and macro port would accomodate my 100 macro and kenko 1.4x. don't want to pack more stuff than i have to

Yep, it's far less 'curvy', as it's not a fish eye lens like the 10-17. Have a look at Photozone's review on it, where they talk about distortion.

I tested the 11-16 last week here in KL at a photo show specifically to look at how it performed vs my Tokina 12-24 f/4.

The lens is indeed a nice piece of kit and is a lot less "curvy" than the 12-24, fast autofocus and as with all Tokinas well made and a solid piece of kit. The only issue I had with it (and it could just have been the model I was testing) was that the zoom ring was pretty stiff - not sure if that was a "feature" - I suspect not. But UW a zoom clamp set would struggle to shift it I suspect! I was tempted to get it there and then had it not been for the possible defect.

Steve

the aquatica chart shows 18462 for the 10-17 fisheye, and still does not include the 11-16. the pair of 18463 extensions is probably as good (maybe better than) the 18462 which is a little on the short side - but i don't want to buy 2 extensions. encouraged by results with +2, maybe i'll just spring for the extension and hope for the best

have no problem with with zoom gear - using focus ring for Canon 60 macro

The review looks pretty good for this lens. Surpisingly little distortion at 11mm. I thought curvy was an accurate description. Sometimes we have to put the technical terms aside and have fun. I need a good topside WA and this may be it. I tried the Tokina 12-24 underwater and wasn't impressed. The corners were weak.

Don't forget that corners from any wide lens will look "better" on a Canon (1.6x crop factor) cropped sensor v a Nikon (1.5x crop factor) cropped sensor as the Canon chip is smaller so doesn't record as wide a view as the Nikon does, so effectively the Canon won't show as much of the region where the sharpness starts to fall off. But of course the lens effectively is not as wide.

Also the "less curvy" feature versus your 10-17 means you will loose 75 degrees of coverage.

The 10-17 dishes out 180deg max. vs. 105deg on the 11-24mm.

I would say they are different tools for different things, although both can be used underwater with varying results.

I do have a 10.5mm FE AND a 10-20mm rectilinear and use both.

Good Luck

oops, miscalculated - the 11-16 appears to need a whopping 2 1/2 - 64mm extension (similar extension for the Canon 10-22). haven't yet determined if this leads to vignetting

why does Aquatica recommend less than 1/2 the necessary (according to dome theory) extension for the 10-22?

what's the best way to get some weight on the port to balance the rig?

looks like i still may be in the pool with a selection of extensions