Tokina AT-X 16-28mm PRO FX lens

Update: This lens got officially announced today. You can find all details here. Samples pictures taken with the Tokina AT-X 16-28 F2.8 PRO FX lens can be found here.

The previously rumored Tokina AT-X 16-28mm PRO FX lens made a brief appearance in Tokyo while I was gone last week. The lens was shown at the "PHOTONEXT 2010" show in Tokyo. The price will be 120,000 yen (around USD1,300?).


This entry was posted in Tokina. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Mohd.

    WOW. I’ve been waiting for one for my D700. I used to have the DX model with my D70s, the ATX 11-16mm F2.8 and it’s really a nice one in terms of both performance and build quality. Can’t wait to get one 🙂

  • Peter

    This will be a great lens, with one giant problem… no filter thread, this isn’t a lens for the landscape photographer :/.

  • for that price they can keep it. Not like it would be 3/4 Price as good as 14-24

  • Anonymous

    does it take filters?

  • Andrej

    So why exactly does Tokina expect some Nikon user is gonna opt for this lens, while he can get a 14-24/2.8, 16-35/4 or 17-35/2.8 AF-S Nikkors?
    Why would I buy this lens over let’s say 17-35/2.8 AF-S Nikkor?

    And I can understand why the 14-24/2.8 can’t hold filters, but not this one? I mean – Canon can do it on their 16-35/2.8, so why can’t Tokina do it on a lens with even less range?

    Not interesting.

    • Karlosak

      Don’t judge the lens beforehand. Tokina’s WA lenses are top notch performers – stellar optics, great build quality. If their engineers can achieve the same optical excellence as with the DX 11-16mm, this could be as good as the mighty Nikkor 14-24mm (except for the chromatic aberration, which is arguably Tokina’s trademark by now, but I don’t care – it is easy to fix).

      Personally, I’m very interested, though the price is a bit steep. A price point about $1000 would be much more competitive. Lens hope that the lens deserves its price tag and can smoke the 14-24mm. 🙂

      • j0qw

        +1 for all

        it may not smoke the 14-24, but it´ll have a chance to beat the 16-35. i love those dx-WA-tokinas…right now i don´t know 14-24 16-35. this could be an real alternative.

        “chromatic aberration, which is arguably Tokina’s trademark by now, but I don’t care – it is easy to fix” – lol, yes. what a great tradeoff!

  • GlobalGuy

    That’s sort of the point, I guess. Tokina is saying “THIS is OUR 14-24 — it is the 16-28”. They include a limited range and a fixed lens shade and a steep price to lend evidence.

    But in my opinion this is idiotic. Even if it is AS GOOD AS the 14-24, the purpose of the 14-24 is wide angle. And even if it is AS GOOD AS the 14-24, the annoyance of the 14-24 is that the lens shade is fixed on the lens body. And even if it is AS GOOD AS the 14-24, no Nikon fan is going to use the 16-28, when they could buy the guarantee of the 14-24 or the added VR benefits/range of the Nikon 16-35 VR.

    What a waste by Tokina.

    If the lens hood came off or if it was VR or if it was somehow closer to f/2.0 or if there was any attempt at differentiation whatsoever, this could have been a good contender at the over $1300 price range. But I’m inclined to agree that this lens should be priced at $1,000 and no more. It is simply the knock-off lens. A “me-too!” lens for no apparent reason. Of course, there are always the guys who say “if i buy 4 slightly cheaper knock-off lenses, i can get another cheap knock-off lens for basically for free” (comparing direct cost to Nikon lenses). But I don’t see how they mass produce these sufficiently for it to make sense to the company, when they could have just designed a far more appealing/unique lens.

    Does Tokina think its appealing to people who wanted the 16-35 to be f/2.8 non-VR instead of f/4 with VR? If so, why didn’t it extend to 35mm or at least 30mm!? As for going head-to-head with the 14-24 — the only other question i could think of is: How does the WEIGHT/BALANCE compare? If the handling is better than the 14-24, it might win some fans. But that fixed lens hood/no filters is so stupid, I can’t believe any manufacturer would follow suit. Its like the idiot feature that won’t go away.

    • Lawliet

      You’re coming from a overly Nikon-centered POV.
      While Canon offers a counterpiece to the 17-35 there is nothing to match thee 14-24, and there are a lot of potentiel customers. Getting the Tamron instead of the TS-E17 or the Nikkor+adapter – that would make sense.
      And for the Nikonians: lets see how street prices develop.

  • Anonymous

    It would be very easy to make a ND filter holder by making some holes in the plastic lens hood !

  • andrew

    All these 3rd party guys are getting bold. While some of their products are top notch. They are pricing all of their new stuff right near First party prices.

    The bad thing is Tokina’s supply chain into the US market kinda sucks. Its always spread really thin and they stop offering things without any explanation. Like the 50-135mm lens they have. No replacement but its still offered overseas.

  • i_want_a_D900

    I suspect Tokina and Sigma is learning from Nikon to rip off the full-frame users.

    in the view of the manufacters, full-frame users = [silly/rich] people who are willing to pay up. I think that could explain their pricing.

    • exactly. I see the ad: third party offerings: a bit worse then original but more expensive!
      I am also guilty from that, got Sigma 50 after AWESOME short term reviews, needed to send it in twice to get focus fixed, got uset to bad metering and in 6 months it broke, motor jammed. Sold it broken for more then Nikkor 50G costs which is at f2 as good.

  • Anonymous

    In the 35mm film full frame time, lots of 3rd party lenses (& official ones) using the latest technology were price bellow 600$…

    • Anonymous

      well, back then many 35mm film full frame bodies, even pretty compentant ones like the N80/N85, cost only a few hundred bucks…

  • Anonymous

    The US price will probably be lower.

  • Anonymous
    • i_want_a_D900

      Looking at the diagram and spec, it is basically Tokina’s version of Nikon’s 14-24. The eventual price should be around US$800 to 900. Japanese prices in Yen usually are 1.5x higher than the US prices.

      The weight is 950g / 2.1 lbs. Almost as heavy as the 14-24. Tokina made the choice of making the lens less wide, so it becomes 16-28. I think a 14-28 f/2.8 would have been a slam dunk for both Nikon and Tokina. But apparently either can do that now.

      I think many would find the 16-35 f/4 VR more appealing. Unless the Tokina can beat the 16-35 in terms of distortion at the 16mm end.

  • jthi3f

    Here are first examplepictures of the lens with the Nikon D3x.

  • jthi3f

    I think the optical performance ist pretty well

  • Back to top