#19 in Digital camera lenses
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 Lens for Canon Mount

Sentiment score: 18
Reddit mentions: 31

We found 31 Reddit mentions of Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 Lens for Canon Mount. Here are the top ones.

Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 Lens for Canon Mount
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • Ultra-wide angle zoom lens
  • Internal silent focusing motor
  • Fast internal focusing
  • One touch focus clutch mechanism
  • Water resistant optical coating on the glass for ease of cleaning
Specs:
Colorblack
Height3.30708 inches
Length3.511804 inches
SizeCanon
Weight1.212542441 Pounds
Width3.30708 inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 31 comments on Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX-II 11-16mm f/2.8 Lens for Canon Mount:

u/filya · 5 pointsr/astrophotography

My current equipment :

  1. Camera : Canon T3i
  2. Lenses : Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 55-250mm f/4.0-f/5.6
  3. Tripod : Proline Dolica
  4. Software : Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom 6

    Using these, I manage to get these : Album

    I want to further my astrophotography, but realize I would need better equipment to better these.



    Which of these would be best bang for my buck for a step forward with astrophotography?

  5. A tracker : Ioptron SkyTracker OR Vixen Polarie
  6. A good solid tripod and ball head
  7. PixInsight software (Is there a cheap or free alternative to a $250 software? I tried DSS, but found it to be inconsistent with results)

    I know a good answer to this would be 'everything', but I can't get myself to spend a lot of $$ at this moment. I could spend a few hundred on one of these, and then at a later point re-evaluate.

    Thanks for hooking me into this awesome hobby!
u/Mikzeroni · 3 pointsr/videography

You can try the Tokina 11-16, but I don't know why you would want to go that wide. The 18-55 is plenty wide.

u/HybridCamRev · 3 pointsr/GH5

/u/SHANKUMS11 - if budget permits, I recommend the [$1199 Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8] (https://www.amazon.com/Olympus-M-Zuiko-Digital-7-14mm-Cameras/dp/B00WENHU6S//ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&linkCode=ll1&tag=battleforthew-20) with its constant f/2.8 aperture and solid low light performance.

Wides [here] (https://youtu.be/XxbwGYqzc_g) and [here] (https://youtu.be/TOq1jEQhRtg) were shot with the GH5 plus the Oly 7-14.

A less expensive alternative might be a [$429.95 Tokina 11-16 2.8] (https://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORXEIW/ref=as_li_ss_tl?m=A2FG5KABYDBHQD&s=merchant-items&ie=UTF8&qid=1496307794&linkCode=ll1&tag=battleforthew-20) with your Speedbooster. Wides [here] (https://youtu.be/mHaynL_uW3k) were shot with the GH5 plus a Metabones and the Tokina.

Hope this is helpful and good luck finding the right lens for your needs!

u/shatteredankle · 3 pointsr/vegas

Before you get a tracking mount, I would take a look at this lens.

Shooting at a really wide angle allows you to leave the exposure open for longer (the stars' movement is a smaller proportion of the image so it becomes less noticeable). You can follow this rule, 500/focal length/1.6 to get your max exposure time before the stars start streaking. So, with your 58mm lens, the max time you could use was 5 seconds before the stars start streaking. But, if you had an 11 mm lens, you could use a 28 second exposure before the stars start streaking. Plus, the Tokina lens can open all the way up to f2.8 which will also help immensely in getting good star photos.

u/kabbage123 · 2 pointsr/videography

Like others have said, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 was my personal gimbal lens for awhile. It was very good but still was a bit clunky

I shoot with a speedboosted GH5, though, and have found that using a small MFT lens like this one has the best results on a gimbal.

It's all about keeping the lens as short as possible, not necessary weight.

u/thehackeysack01 · 2 pointsr/Cameras

May I suggest the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II Digital Zoom? For a smidge more $$ you get some zoom adjustment and a consistently wide aperture. I have one and enjoy the landscapes I've shot with it.

u/SolMarch · 2 pointsr/M43

Metabones' Speed Booster is not compatible with Canon EF-S lenses (due to an extended protrusion at the rear of the lens), but it is completely compatible with third-party APS-C lenses (e.g. Sigma, Tokina, etc.).

Here are a few wide-angle options:

  • [Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8](http://amzn.to/2cKMP23 "Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8") (Boosted: 7.8-14.2mm f/2.0)
  • [Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II](http://amzn.to/1z02lz0 "Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II") (Boosted: 7.8-11.4mm f/2.0)
  • [Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8](http://amzn.to/1r8xVUj "Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8") (12.8-24.9mm f/1.2) - Not as wide as the Rokinon 12mm, but a good deal faster, which may be a worthwhile trade-off.

    You may also be interested in native wide-angle lenses for astrophotography purposes. They may not be fast, but they may provide better quality at these ultra-wide angles, especially compared to non-Metabones focal reducers. Here are a couple options:

  • [Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8](http://amzn.to/1AUqH9G "Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8")
  • [Venus Laowa 7.5mm f/2](https://bhpho.to/2qV02zA "Venus Laowa 7.5mm f/2")
u/Arctic670 · 2 pointsr/photography

Question: For indoor photography (Real Estate) on APS-C where I'm trying to make the room look as big & nice as possible, would you recommend the:

  • Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II | $399

     

    OR

     

  • Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM | $399

     

    I've compared both lenses on dp review and the only main difference appears to be that the Tokina has 9 blades vs the Sigma's 7 and the Tokina is a half stop wider.

     

    Any experiences or opinions? Ken Rockwell doesn't appear to have a review of the latest f3.5 Sigma (he does for the old 4.5-5.6). And while I have read his review for the Tokina, I don't have a sharpness/vignetting diagram of the Sigma to compare to.

     

    Thanks for your input!
u/Consolol · 2 pointsr/photography

I'm assuming you want something wider than your kit lens. What's your budget?

For $600 I would check out the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It's quite wide and the f/2.8 aperture is good for low light.

u/ApatheticAbsurdist · 2 pointsr/photography

Keep in mind that 35mm on a 60D is not wide angle. It's normal angle field of view. It is a wide aperture lens (good for low light and shallow DOF). If you want wide aperture, that is a fine lens but this one will be a bit cheaper and be pretty much just as good. The 35mm you list is made to work on full frame and APS-C cameras, the cheaper one I list is made only to work on APS-C/Crop cameras like your 60D and as a result it's $400 cheaper.

If you want wide angle, the question is how wide. Do you want something wider than what your 18-135 can do at it's wides (18mm)? Then you're going to need a lens wider than 18mm. The lenses I'd recommend for that case are the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, the Sigma 8-16mm, or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 DX II. The Sigma will the the widest, the Tokina has the widest aperture (better for low light), and the canon is in-between on both counts and a Canon, which some people like having. All are in the $600-800 range.

u/beley · 2 pointsr/videography

24mm isn't wide on a crop sensor - that's the equivalent of a 35mm lens. I have the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and it's a great lens, but it's really not that wide either and it focus hunts a bit and the focus is pretty loud. I do use it in MF some for video, or when you don't care about the on camera audio (even with an external shoe mount mic). Still though, 17-18mm is not really that wide on a crop sensor Canon.

If aperture is not a big issue then I'd recommend the Canon STM 10-18mm - it's really wide and made for crop sensor lenses and the STM motor is really silent. Autofocus works extremely well. It's a great affordable wide angle lens for video.

I haven't used it for video (yet) but the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is an amazing quality ultrawide for the price. Might be worth checking out reviews that use it for video if it's in your budget. I tried one out at B&H a few years back (only on photo mode unfortunately) and was really impressed. It's been on my wish list ever since.

u/PastramiSwissRye · 1 pointr/videography

How fast, how wide, and how cheap? Here are a few combinations thereof:

Fast and cheap usually means Canon FD - you can get a 50mm f/1.4 for $50. Not what I'd call wide though.

Fast and Wide means that Sigma. As you've noticed, you'll need a pair of assistants to hold up the front of your camera to keep it balanced.

Wide and cheap means Rokinon fisheye.

Fast AND wide AND cheap, you can try the Kowa 6mm f/1.8 though the IQ is a little rocky. http://amzn.com/B00OBMCMFO

The compromise is probably the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It's somewhat wide, somewhat fast, somewhat cheap: http://amzn.com/B007ORXEIW

Olympus makes a 9mm MFT body cap lens for $80, but it's sloooooow.

Olympus also has a 17mm f/2.8 for only $200.

u/InvisibleJiuJitsu · 1 pointr/GH5

i borrowed the tokina 11-16 f2.8 off my canon buddy when i was selling my house and it worked really well for me

u/zpanic · 1 pointr/photography

I was looking at the DXII one mate and it was definitely above my budget. Also, don't want any grey market gear if I'm honest.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B007ORXEIW?pc_redir=1396598256&robot_redir=1

u/brunerww · 1 pointr/Filmmakers

Hi /u/gaber-rager - all good lenses, but it sounds like you may still need a fast, wide lens.

Depending on how wide you want to go, I recommend the [$528 Tokina 11-16 constant f2.8] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007ORXEIW/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B007ORXEIW&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) or the [$799 Sigma 18-35 f1.8] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DBL0NLQ/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00DBL0NLQ&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) [Referral Links]. Both great lenses.

Hope this is helpful!

Bill

u/smushkan · 1 pointr/videography

How wide do you want it?

It's not a prime, but the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is my go-to for wide angles.

u/Riot207 · 1 pointr/astrophotography

Duly noted! Suppose to be clear skies tonight around 8pm est going to give it a try! I also think I need a better lens with a better f stop?

Looking at this lens currently

u/bravokiloromeo · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

It's all just a matter of focal length. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 will have the same field of view as your 18-55mm set at 50mm, and the 10-18 @ 18mm will look the same as the 18-55 @ 18mm.

If the 18mm isn't wide enough, then you need a wider lens. The 10-18 is a great budget upgrade. You could also go for something like the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which also has a wider max aperture if you want to do astro stuff in the future.

u/imperialka · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

> On Canon APS-C cameras this is 1.62. Multiply the focal length by 1.62; for 16mm this is 26mm - if you have an APS-C camera with a 16mm lens next to a 135-format camera with a 26mm lens they would have the same perspective.

You lost me here. I'm not sure where you got 1.62 from or why you have to multiply this by 16mm to get 26mm. Could you explain this a little differently?

If I understand right 26mm on a full frame is the equivalent to a 16mm on a crop sensor? 26mm is actually 16mm on a full frame? I'm confused.

EDIT: is the Tokina 11-16mm DXII better than the first DX? Here is the DX on amazon and the newer version. Newer one is cheaper than the original but idk which is better or what the difference is.

Also, I see that the Tokina has it's own aperture ring...does this mean I have to always manually select this by turning the ring? Can I select the aperture electronically from my DSLR screen?

It even has an infinity sign which I know means "focus to infinity" but I genuinely don't understand how this works except I know it's for manual focus. What is this and how do you use this?

u/aeolyn5601 · 1 pointr/photography

I don't know what your budget is, but the Tokina 11-16 is a pretty great lens.

u/Raichu93 · 1 pointr/LosAngeles

This lens or this lens are great all-round and good in lowlight. Half of my album is with an equivalent lens like this.

If you're into ultra-wides (the other half of the album is an ultra-wide), then this lens is great, and this lens is even better but more expensive.

Those two focal lengths have carried me for the past 4 years without me ever feeling the need to get anything else. That being said, this lens I think is a must have for all Canon users. At just over $100, it will deliver great results in lowlight. Honestly it might be the best bang for buck lens in all of photography. And because it's so cheap, plus you're getting the camera free, I might even recommend getting all three, if that's in the budget.

If you want to be a little more conservative, here's what I would do: Get one of the first two I linked, shoot and play around with that for a while, and see what you find you need next. Do you want something a little more zoomed in for shallow depth of field and delicious bokeh? Get the 50mm. Do you crave getting some sweet wide shots? Get one of the ultra-wides. Let your needs decide what your second lens is, because it's a very personal choice and no one can know what you want to shoot until you try it out for yourself.

Software: Adobe Lightroom is all I use really, and it's all you need. It's designed as an all-in-one management, editing, and publishing platform.

Good luck!

u/d4vezac · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

Lens buying can be a bewildering and expensive rabbit hole to dive down, and it really does come down to how much you want to spend and what you want to shoot. The 50mm you linked is probably the best cheap lens you can buy because it remains useful even as you get more and more into the hobby. It's never a bad buy.

If you're wanting this to be a surprise for your wife, I'd buy the camera with the 50mm, and talk to her when you give it to her about having planned to budget additional money for a second lens. Depending on how much she knows/remembers from her earlier experience with photography, she may know exactly what she wants. If she doesn't, the Sigma 17-50 that someone else mentioned is a good recommendation. It's a step or two up from a kit lens in terms of quality, and it probably won't break the bank if you were already planning to buy another lens. It also gives you a little bit of wide-angle and a little bit of telephoto, so you can see what zoom range you find yourself using the most, and whether you find yourself wishing for an even wider-angle or even more zoom, which will inform you as to where you might look next.

The Tokina 11-16 might be your next lens if you want wider-angle, or some flavor of a 70-200 might be your next purchase if she really wants to follow through on shooting weddings. Again, I'd recommend against diving straight to weddings, and maybe work for a friend, or shoot some other indoor events to warm up and learn what tools she might need. I'd advocate for a 70-200 f/2.8 (and preferably either Canon's version with IS or Tamron's version with VC) rather than the 70-200 f/4, as lighting conditions might just be too poor for f/4 and no stabilization.

u/MingusDewfus · 1 pointr/CampingandHiking

You want a lens that is short with a big aperture, here are a few suggestions (they make these for the common bodies, I just linked to canon models because that's what I have):

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II Digital Zoom Lens (for Canon EOS Cameras) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007ORXEIW/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_Xe6PzbFCG97B6

Or

Rokinon 24mm F/1.4 Aspherical Wide Angle Lens for Canon RK24M-C https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006YM9L26/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_wf6PzbBDA6D9T

And read up about the max exposure time before stars start to blur from the rotation of the earth, there is an equation using lens specs for calculating a good starting point.

u/dyskgo · 1 pointr/Filmmakers

Thanks, I really appreciate the help. Its all so overwhelming for me. I think I've got the crop sensor thing - all the lenses with the 60D will be 1.6x their focal length (?).

These were the two lenses I was looking at: http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Super-Takumar-Element-Manual-Focus/dp/B004LCZG8Y and http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B007ORXEIW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377371777&sr=8-1&keywords=Tokina+11-16mm.

Part of what confuses me is that, for the first lens, I need an M42 screw mount to attach the lens...and I'm confused how that works. There are so many different M42 screw mounts. Do I simply have to get one that attaches to a Canon? I've had trouble trying to figure this out.

I've also wanted to get a macro extension and I've been having trouble figuring out what I have to get for that too. I could get a Canon-geared macro extension tube, but would it fit over the Pentax lens?

u/mmcnama4 · 1 pointr/photography

I'm looking for a wide-angle lens and they're at different ends of the spectrum and I'm trying to decide which to invest in.

Two lenses I'm looking at:

  1. Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L ll USM - $1449

  2. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II - $417.82

    Some details:

  • Using a Canon T5i (crop factor of 1.6x)
  • Looking for a wide aperture at 2.8
  • Looking for an autofocus lens

    I can afford both options, but I'm hesitant to spend an extra $1k if it doesn't make sense given the two lenses I'm considering. On one hand, the Tokina will allow me to take advantage of my full sensor (and save me a grand) and give me a full 11mm-16mm lens. On the other hand, the Canon+crop factor puts me at roughly a 36mm-56mm lens.

    So, why does the Canon even bare consideration? Not is it well reviewed, but it's conceivable that I'd own a full-frame camera at some point. Logic here being get a great lens and be somewhat prepared for the future.

    I've also used the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle Fixed Lens and loved that, except for the fact it was fixed.

    Looking for input on this as I weigh my options.

    TL/DR: Considering two lenses. One is very well reviewed, but very expensive and meant for a full frame camera which I do not currently have. The other is significantly less expensive, still well reviewed (albeit not as well) and does not have to deal with the crop factor.

    edit: also open to other lens recomendations.
u/Enduer · 1 pointr/photography

It depends on the pictures you're taking.

A 50mm f/1.8 is always a good choice. About $100. It's better for portraits or walking around than landscapes though.

A wide angle zoom like this 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 from Canon wouldn't be bad. It'll let you get wide angle landscape shots of basically anything. Would not be the best for low light situations though and if you ever go full frame you would have to sell it.

Finally, more expensive, but generally worth it, is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. You can get them used to save a bit of money and the best part is generally lenses hold their value very well, unlike camera bodies. This lens will be much more appropriate for low light shots or pictures of the stars.

If you're gonna splurge, splurge on lenses. Hope that helps a bit or gets some ideas flowing.

u/drlibs · 1 pointr/astrophotography

I am debating between the Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

I currently use a Canon Rebel T5 and have been using a Sigma 10-20mm f/4 lens for my astrophotography. I have got some excellent shots with it. I am traveling to NZ soon and would like to get a better lens for astrophotography. My problem is I am torn between the better f/stop of the Rokinon and the focal length range of the Tokina. The auto/manual of the Tokina is also a plus for non-astrophotography pictures.

The Rokinon is cheaper too, which seems like a plus.

Help!

u/d4m1en · 1 pointr/photography

Unfortunately, wider lenses tend to be very expensive. That's because it's technically difficult to build a wide angle lens for a DSLR.

Your two main options are Canon EF-S 10-22 (I have one, it's excellent) at about $650 or Tokina 11-16 at about $550 (never used it but it has a good reputation). If you're lucky you may just find the previous version of the Tokina second-hand for $300 or a bit more.

u/osajustin · 1 pointr/photography

I'm looking into buying a wide angle lens for my Canon t6i rebel. I want to use it primarily for youtube (record myself) but I don't want to end up buying another lens in the future. I've had my eyes on the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX II, the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens, the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens, and the Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical. For the more expensive one's over $300 I do plan on getting them used. In my situation I think regardless of what lens I may get I'll be using a softbox for lighting. I know lower aperature is better but I cannot distinguish the quality of the lenses. Any recommedations and where I could buy used lenses at a lower price?