Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

14mm or 11-16mm lens?

profile picture
Thawg
Posts: 360 - Karma: 542
I really need to get a wide angle lens, and am torn between a 14mm f/2.8 or a tokina 11-16 f/2.8

From my understanding the 14mm Pros are: more barrel distortion, less edge/corner blur, cheaper, and is sharper than the 11-16. Cons: it's a manual focus. The 11-16 Pros: is a zoom lens, has manual and autofocus, and is more versatile because of these things. Cons: it is more expensive(about $200 more), has less barrel distortion(from what I have read), isn't as sharp, and has more edge/corner blur. So basically would it be worth getting the 11-16(which I am leaning towards), or would it just be easier to get the 14mm?

I would be getting the lens primarily for recording skiing/skateboarding(I would still use it for pictures a lot though), so the 11-16 autofocus and zoom could come in pretty handy, but is it worth the ~$200?

Links: 14mm http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/698926-REG/Bower_SLY14MMF2_8N_14mm_f_2_8_Ultra_Wide.html

11-16 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/882236-REG/Tokina_atx116prodxn_ii_AT_X_116_PRO_DX_II.html
May 16 2014 2:53PM
20 4
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
barrel distortion isn't a good thing, you should be avoiding that not looking for it
May 16 2014 3:58PM
4 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
12-24 f4.

the 11-16 is a great lens, but the focal range is so short.

the 14mm has a pretty fucking ugly distortion profile.
May 16 2014 4:02PM
3 1
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
The tokina 11-16 hands down. I believe 14mm f2.8 you are looking at has the infamous "mustache" distortion. It distorts in a mustache shape across the image. While very annoying, it can be dealt with for photos. For video, it is much more complicated, and you will lose resolution. As far as the 12-24, it may have the range, but it is a stop slower, and the sharpness is awful in comparison. I was looking at both also, and from what I have seen, the 11-16 is the gold standard for wide angles, especially for video, with some companies taking it, rehousing it, gearing it, and even adding a PL mount. The 12-24 can't touch it in terms of sharpness, and while I am usually not a fan of pixel peepers/brick wall shots, being able to use the corners at f2.8 vs f8 says quite a lot (also a much bigger deal for video).
May 16 2014 4:22PM
3 0
profile picture
Thawg
Posts: 360 - Karma: 542
Baltobarrel distortion isn't a good thing, you should be avoiding that not looking for it

It looks good for skating, so I like it. I would get a fisheye, but I would rather not have to be 2 feet away for the shot to not look small. And I'm not specifically looking for it, it just happens to be something that I like about the 14mm(who knows I might not like it after using it, if I ever use it that is).

DingoSean12-24 f4.

the 11-16 is a great lens, but the focal range is so short.

the 14mm has a pretty fucking ugly distortion profile.


12-24 f/4 is way too expensive for me, the 11-16 is even pushing my budget. And I don't really feel that the focal range is too short for what I will be using this lens for, so its not a problem for me.
May 16 2014 5:24PM
1 1
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,024
The_WoatIt looks good for skating, so I like it. I would get a fisheye, but I would rather not have to be 2 feet away for the shot to not look small. And I'm not specifically looking for it, it just happens to be something that I like about the 14mm(who knows I might not like it after using it, if I ever use it that is).



12-24 f/4 is way too expensive for me, the 11-16 is even pushing my budget. And I don't really feel that the focal range is too short for what I will be using this lens for, so its not a problem for me.


If you're shooting skating get a rokinon 8mm.
May 16 2014 6:15PM
1 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
The_WoatIt looks good for skating, so I like it. I would get a fisheye, but I would rather not have to be 2 feet away for the shot to not look small. And I'm not specifically looking for it, it just happens to be something that I like about the 14mm(who knows I might not like it after using it, if I ever use it that is).



12-24 f/4 is way too expensive for me, the 11-16 is even pushing my budget. And I don't really feel that the focal range is too short for what I will be using this lens for, so its not a problem for me.


You will have to still be very close to shoot skating.

The distortion is more than barrel distortion, it's complex, meaning you get all sorts of strange things going on. Not very noticeable for video, if that's your thing, however I assume you are shooting photos, where it will be noticable.

I don't think that the 14mm rokinon is sharper than the tokina.
May 16 2014 7:14PM
0 0
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
The_WoatIt looks good for skating, so I like it. I would get a fisheye, but I would rather not have to be 2 feet away for the shot to not look small. And I'm not specifically looking for it, it just happens to be something that I like about the 14mm(who knows I might not like it after using it, if I ever use it that is).


Being 2 feet away is what makes the barrel distortion of a fisheye cool/gives classic skate edits the whole look in general. It's all about getting super close so that the action is right in your face. The fisheye then embellishes/accentuates that look, and it allows you to get even closer. They are sometimes referred to as "death lenses" because one slip up (from the filmer or skater) brings the possibility of high consewuences. Using a bad rectilinear wide angle is not a good solution, at least to achieve the look it seems that you are going for.

If you want a rectilinear UWA, get the tokina 11-16. If you want a fisheye, get the rokinon 8mm.
May 16 2014 9:33PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
The_Woat12-24 f/4 is way too expensive for me, the 11-16 is even pushing my budget. And I don't really feel that the focal range is too short for what I will be using this lens for, so its not a problem for me.


Haha what? the 12-24 f4 is like 300$... it's almost half as much as the 11-16.

...as far as sharpness, I have had plenty of experience with both and I absolutely prefer the 12-24. The 11-16 is marginally better at f4, but it's no better at any other fstop. As for being a stop slower, how often are you really using a wide angle in that low of light? I mean, if you're doing night video, save the extra 250 and buy lighting that you can use with any lens.

Most of you folks shooting skiing during the day should be at f5.6 at the most... no reason to use anything faster on snow in daylight.
May 16 2014 9:50PM
0 1
profile picture
Thawg
Posts: 360 - Karma: 542
DingoSeanHaha what? the 12-24 f4 is like 300$... it's almost half as much as the 11-16.


I'm not sure what 12-24 f/4 you're talking about, the only ones I could find were $800 at the cheapest. But is the 12-24 f4 you're talking about have auto focus capabilities, or is it just manual, because thats one of the main reasons I am getting the 11-16(and no I'm not getting it because I can't use manual focus, I primarily shoot with manual, I just think the auto focus would be nice to have for video).

But after reading all the replies, I think I'm going to get the 11-16. It's a more versatile lens for what I'm looking to use it for.
May 16 2014 11:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Thawg
Posts: 360 - Karma: 542
pussyfooterIf you're shooting skating get a rokinon 8mm.


I'd like to get that lens, but I need just a straight up wide angle at the moment. I guess I'm just going to have to deal with not being as 'raw' for a while with skating.
May 16 2014 11:36PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,024
The_WoatI'm not sure what 12-24 f/4 you're talking about, the only ones I could find were $800 at the cheapest. But is the 12-24 f4 you're talking about have auto focus capabilities, or is it just manual, because thats one of the main reasons I am getting the 11-16(and no I'm not getting it because I can't use manual focus, I primarily shoot with manual, I just think the auto focus would be nice to have for video).

But after reading all the replies, I think I'm going to get the 11-16. It's a more versatile lens for what I'm looking to use it for.


Don't even consider auto focus with a photo lens or with a dslr in general, it's not usable. Auto focus is only for photos.
May 16 2014 11:38PM
2 1
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
The_WoatI'm not sure what 12-24 f/4 you're talking about, the only ones I could find were $800 at the cheapest. But is the 12-24 f4 you're talking about have auto focus capabilities, or is it just manual, because thats one of the main reasons I am getting the 11-16(and no I'm not getting it because I can't use manual focus, I primarily shoot with manual, I just think the auto focus would be nice to have for video).

But after reading all the replies, I think I'm going to get the 11-16. It's a more versatile lens for what I'm looking to use it for.


Dude. Fucking GOOGLE or something. First thing that came up right here. 334$ in basically new condition. It retails for half of what you must have been finding, and at least 100$ less than a new 11-16.

Tokina 12-24 f4

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20637784.html?gclid=CJiLnLWdsr4CFWsS7Aod4jwANg

I feel like the 11-16 is super un-versitile based on the fact that all you get are wide angles. It's a 17-24 on a full frame. Granted it's a great lens for what it is...

the 12-24 is basically like that of a Canon 17-40 f4 on a full frame. give or take a mill either way. You can use it as a walkaround, and it's at least 200$ cheaper on average.
May 17 2014 1:49AM
0 0
profile picture
Thawg
Posts: 360 - Karma: 542
DingoSeanDude. Fucking GOOGLE or something. First thing that came up right here. 334$ in basically new condition. It retails for half of what you must have been finding, and at least 100$ less than a new 11-16.

Tokina 12-24 f4

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20637784.html?gclid=CJiLnLWdsr4CFWsS7Aod4jwANg

I feel like the 11-16 is super un-versitile based on the fact that all you get are wide angles. It's a 17-24 on a full frame. Granted it's a great lens for what it is...

the 12-24 is basically like that of a Canon 17-40 f4 on a full frame. give or take a mill either way. You can use it as a walkaround, and it's at least 200$ cheaper on average.


Sorry I didn't know you meant the tokina 12-24; the first thing that came up for me by just googling 12-24mm f4 was the nikon 12-24 f4. And after comparing both lenses I see why the 12-24 would be a good choice, but for what I'm looking for in a lens the 11-16 is a better option. Thanks for the help though.
May 17 2014 2:43PM
0 0
profile picture
lIllI
Posts: 1255 - Karma: 1,986
DingoSeanI feel like the 11-16 is super un-versitile based on the fact that all you get are wide angles.


I wish people would stop treating the 11-16 like some sort of handicapped zoom lens. It's more of a fine-tuneable UWA - a variable prime if you will. I mean it behaves like a prime throughout the whole range...
May 18 2014 12:26PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
lIllII wish people would stop treating the 11-16 like some sort of handicapped zoom lens. It's more of a fine-tuneable UWA - a variable prime if you will. I mean it behaves like a prime throughout the whole range...


It's a great lens, no doubt... but it only covers the very wide-ultra wide angle range - so yeah, it does behave like a prime in that sense. the reasons to get it are because it's fast, well built, and has distortion that's reasonable as hell at all of it's focal lengths.

That said, If I'm getting a zoom, I'm more interested in a zoom that gives me multiple options. Something like the 12-24 is awesome because it covers a range from ultra wide to wide-normal. Yeah, its slightly slower, but it's also way cheaper, still performs very well, and gives you more perspective options while being built exactly the same.

If I had a crop body, there's no doubt I'd own one.
May 18 2014 1:09PM
0 0
profile picture
lIllI
Posts: 1255 - Karma: 1,986
DingoSeanIt's a great lens, no doubt... but it only covers the very wide-ultra wide angle range - so yeah, it does behave like a prime in that sense.


What I mean is that the 11-16 shouldn't be considered a "zoom lens" because it will not fulfill the function of a zoom lens (as you said). It is functions like a prime because, optically, it's very good, and the zoom is so limited that you still have to use your feet.

Comparing the 11-16 to a 12-24 is apples to oranges as far as I'm concerned. It just seems silly to lump them into the same category because they both have a zoom ring on them despite having completely different uses.
May 18 2014 2:01PM
1 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
That's kinda what I'm saying...

Buy the 11-16 if you only want wide angles. Buy the 12-24 if you want more versatility - with most of the same UWA capabilities, while sacrificing a stop of speed, giving slightly more distortion, and saving 200 bucks. The build quality is the same on both (I'm pretty sure they use the same housing)

I will also say this, the 12-24 does not behave as well at night, as you're likely to get a bit more coma, but with both lenses stopped down to 5.6 or 8, you're going to see pretty great results from either.
May 19 2014 12:49AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61601 - Karma: 123,024
DingoSeanThat's kinda what I'm saying...

Buy the 11-16 if you only want wide angles. Buy the 12-24 if you want more versatility - with most of the same UWA capabilities, while sacrificing a stop of speed, giving slightly more distortion, and saving 200 bucks. The build quality is the same on both (I'm pretty sure they use the same housing)

I will also say this, the 12-24 does not behave as well at night, as you're likely to get a bit more coma, but with both lenses stopped down to 5.6 or 8, you're going to see pretty great results from either.


This is getting out of hand, a 12-24 still isnt that versatile haha I agree with landis I think, if you buy an 11-16 you probably buy another lens (like i did with my 17-50).
May 19 2014 12:55AM
1 0
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1386 - Karma: 720
On what camera will you be using this lens? You talk about AF so I'm assuming a Nikon DSLR?

Keep in mind that these Tokina lenses come in two versions for Nikon: the old without AF motor, and the new with AF motor. This means if you have a lower-end Nikon and you take the old versions of these lenses, you won't have AF anyway.

In the case of the 12-24 I believe the new version is 12-28 which is even more versatile.
May 21 2014 9:55AM
0 0
profile picture
Vinnie_B
Posts: 84 - Karma: 225
Cons: it's a manual focus.
This is a con? Just set a greater dof and stop down!
May 27 2014 3:46PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)