Ultra Wide Angle SSE

W

WDWFigment

Member
Some shots (right now only one--many more to come, including shots taken inside the attraction) taken with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8



Clicking the picture takes you to its Flickr page (as with all images--that's where my EXIF data is located)
 
^I'm lazy, so I just took this from the trip report I'm currently writing:

That said, anyone who suggests buying a non-full frame ultra-wide angle lens for Disney that is not the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is flat out wrong. Unquestionably, unequivocally wrong. I’ve heard that you won’t need the f/2.8 when you’re using a UWA lens. That’s wrong. I’ve heard that you’re better off having the 16-24mm than the 11-12mm. That’s wrong. Heck, I’ve heard all sorts of things. All wrong (well, besides the things saying to get this lens). The Tokina 11-16 is the perfect UWA lens. At f/2.8 it’s a viable lens to use for some cool shots on dark rides. Try those with a f/4 UWA. I think this will be especially true as cameras continue to advance high-ISO-wise, making those f/1.4-8 lenses less necessary. Similar to John, the father from the Carousel of Progress, I predict a day when wide angle lenses are used just as frequently as primes on dark rides, and a day when floating cameras that you telecommunicate settings to is possible–okay, maybe not the latter, but definitely the former, so why not get that type of UWA lens today?

As for the second aspect, whenever I used my UWA, I seemed to be using it on 11mm. If it had a 10mm, I probably would’ve used it on that. It could’ve been a prime for all I cared. I will gladly take that extra 1mm on the wide end and sacrifice the 8mm on the other end. I have other lenses that are duplicative of the longer end, I don’t have any others that can do the 11mm. Plus, although I don’t pretend to understand optical science, I’m sure the image quality is better as a result of the smaller focal range. Below are some images taken with the 11-16 that wouldn’t have been possible with, say, the Nikon 12-24 f/4 (which I am now very glad that I sold). As with most opinions, your mileage may vary. However, if it varies too far from my conclusions, it probably is wrong.
 
^Understand...

I've been thinking about a UWA myself, as the widest I can now get is 18 - I'd like to be able to get some of those pictures without having to walk a quarter mile! ; Your review helps!
 
I agree with everything you said Tom!
As a matter of fact, I just rented the 11-16 again.
 
I agree too - though I actually do have a different lens (the Tokina isn't available in my mount). ; But the basic ideas are my thoughts too - first that you won't need a fast UWA - I find myself pushing my F3.5 wide open more often than I expected, especially shooting indoors with no tripod. ; And as far as the focal range - I bought my Tamron 10-24 for really NO other reason than for the 10mm. ; I couldn't really have cared less about anything over 15mm in fact. ; When I was shopping available UWAs, I looked at Sony 11-18, Sigma 10-20, and Tamron 10-24. ; The Sigma always gets raves, having been around a while, while the Tamron was aggressively panned by Sigma users who never touched it...I guess just because it is competition. ; I tried them both out on my camera, and tested them at MY usable range...and the Tamron was the better fit. ; In the end, it had less distortion and better center sharpness at 10mm to 14mm, then the Sigma actually started to look better. ; The Sigma had better corner sharpness at 10mm, but was not as sharp on center. ; The Tamron also had better distortion control at 10mm - with a very level and mild horizontal curve and no vertical distortion, whereas the Sigma was nice and flat in the middle of the frame, then dropped off at either corner quite aggressively, making it an odd and not easily corrected distortion.

Over both the Tammy and the Sigma, I've always heard good things about the Tokina. ; It just wasn't on my available list! ; But I'm quite happy with the Tammy.

Nice shot, BTW! ; I so cannot wait to hit Disney with a UWA!!
 
Great shot Tom. An UWA is the only lens missing from my bag. I will certainly have to look into the Tokina for my next lens purchase.
 
"WDWFigment" said:
Plus, although I don’t pretend to understand optical science, I’m sure the image quality is better as a result of the smaller focal range.
Click to expand...

I agree. ; If you look at some of the lenses with larger zoom range, the lens usually suffer from barrel distortion at one end and pincushion at the other.
 
As another satisfied owner of the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 I whole heartedly agree with Tom. ; This lens is great and I also mostly use it at 11mm. ; However, when I used a friend's D700 FX camera, it worked at 15-16mm without vignetting. ; So, dark rides here I come at Pixelmania! ; ;D
 
"Scottwdw" said:
So, dark rides here I come at Pixelmania!
Click to expand...
This is the lens you loaned me at MouseFest last year, right? ; If so, I got some nice shots on Buzz Lightyear with it
 
"Grumpwurst" said:
This is the lens you loaned me at MouseFest last year, right? ; If so, I got some nice shots on Buzz Lightyear with it
Click to expand...

That is correct, sir! Now, imagine an FX sensor able to go to 6400 ISO and beyond! ; :bstar:
 
You will conceivably be able to do everything besides Haunted Mansion and Peter Pan's Flight with that combination. ; Good luck!
 
"WDWFigment" said:
Another:

Clicking the picture takes you to its Flickr page!
Click to expand...

Hmmm....that looks familiar though a bit earlier in the day than mine.
537708470_DmUX2-L.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top