Tokina 11-16 replacement

[Longimanus1975]

I am in the process of thinking about moving to an EM-1, but would like something similiar to one of my favourite lenses on my D7000.

What are peoples thoughts on replacing my tokina 11-16 in the m4/3rds format?

I currently use the tok with a 10 stop filter and a GND filter for landscape predominantly

Any thoughts much appreciated

 

[Timmy]

Instead of changing the lens you could get a speed booster (http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPNFG-m43-BM1) - that would make it an impressive 7.7-11.2 2.0 (much closer to your equivalent Nikon focal length) - but you would have to focus manually (not a huge issue for landscape). Or you you get an normal adapter with manual aperture control.

If you want to go native, then there's a few excellent options (the tiny oly 9-18, Pany 7-14 (can't take filters)). Native lenses will be much more convenient and possibly a bit sharper, currently the wide-zoom options are bit slower than your tokina (again might not be an issue for landscape) - though there are some new fast lenses coming out soon (with a hefty price).

Ultimately it comes down to your budget - with minimal spend you could get an adapter & keep your lens, you would lose a bit of width though, spending extra on a speed booster would get you some width back.

If you're ditching your Nikon and doing mostly landscape, ultimately selling the Tokina and getting a native lens (e.g. Oly 9-18) probably makes the most sense (providing you're happy with the equiv focal length) - IQ will be great, the lenses are small and you get focus/app control.

N.B. don't forget that owning an EM-1 (with MMF adapter) also gives you access to the older four-thirds lens catalog - loads of great lenses here, autofocus is a bit slower but again that's not an issue for landscape.

 

[Longimanus1975]

Timmy thanks for the reply, I didn't think of an adapter, I would prefer the native lenses as it make the whole system easier to travel with.

Am I correct in thinking that the oly 9-18 is the only wide angle that will accept filter?

What lenses are on the horizon then, I have heard of the oly 7-14 pro, any others?

 

[Timmy]

As far as I am aware the 9-18 is the only "ultra-wide-zoom" that has a filter thread. I don't think the new oly will have a thread. If you search these forums you'll find threads where people claim to of got filters on their 7-14. The 9-18 is a great lens, you can find samples in the image gallery of this forum.

There are plenty of options in the 12-14mm area primes and the Oly 12-40 2.8 which is considered an great match for the E-M1, all depends on how wide you need to go, many, many threads here on ultra wide lenses in general!

 

[Longimanus1975]

Thanks Timmy, I appreciate your help.

I think for the time being I will go with the 12-40 kit lens and then really see if I need anything wider, plus it will fit my filters.

I may even get the 7-14 as I know is good underwater, but thats a different story

 

[kinlau]

The 9-18 on m43 and 11-16 on 1.5x is about equiv on the wide end. I have both as well, and have no problems recommending the 9-18. Vignetting will be an issue with some filters. Hanging a GND off the front of the 9-18 might be tricky, it's not near as robust as the 11-16.

 

[jamespetts]

Do consider the Four Thirds lenses if you are getting an E-M1. The Four Thirds 9-18mm is sharper in the corners than the Micro Four Thirds version (which makes compromises for its smaller size) and can accept filters. It is a bit slower at focussing than the Micro Four Thirds version, and somewhat bigger (but, even with adapter, only fractionally bigger than the native 12-40mm), but secondhand ones are really quite inexpensive. There is also the Four Thirds 7-14mm f/4.0, which is, from what I understand, a very good lens indeed, although it is rather large and heavy and does not take filters.

Alternatively, you could wait 6-9 months for the forthcoming Olympus Micro Four Thirds 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO lens. This is likely to be of good quality (although one cannot be sure until it is released, of course) and will probably not have the particularly serious flare issues that the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 lens has when used with Olympus bodies.

 

[MassimoFoti]

Alternatively, you could wait 6-9 months for the forthcoming Olympus Micro Four Thirds 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO lens. This is likely to be of good quality (although one cannot be sure until it is released, of course) and will probably not have the particularly serious flare issues that the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0 lens has when used with Olympus bodies.

Unless you are in a hurry, I suggest to wait for the 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO and, based on what it will offer, reconsider your options.

 

[broody]

Unless you are in a hurry, I suggest to wait for the 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO and, based on what it will offer, reconsider your options.

Yes. There's a lot more attention to the wide end in upcoming lens releases... 7-14mm Zuiko, 10mm F2 Samyang, 8.5mm F2.8 Kowa...

The OP does well to just try with the 12-40mm first, though. It's razor sharp at the wide end even wide open, and has a beatiful rendering.

 

[bassman]

I have both the 9-18 and 11-16. Other than the obvious differences in field of view and max aperture, I find them roughly comparable in quality. Here are a few recent shots with the 9-18 taken on an E-M1. All were stopped down (5.6 or 8). The first is uncropped, the second has a slight crop.

Personally, I believe the 'purple blob flare problem' which the OM-D bodies suffer is related to the width of the lens and not the brand, combined with shooting into bright light. I've seen it on both the E-M5 and E-M1, but it generally is not a problem.

The Panasonic 7-14 is obviously wider and is faster at the long end. Like the Nikon 14-24, it has a protruding front element and so doesn't accept screw-in filters.

 

[Longimanus1975]

Thanks all for the information, I really appreciate it, as I have said I think I will wait and just play with the 12-40mm for the time being, I will be getting the Pany fisheye so I think this will keep me satisfied for the time being.

 

[dougjgreen]

Unless you are in a hurry, I suggest to wait for the 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO and, based on what it will offer, reconsider your options.

Unfortunately, that lens is probably going to cost 3 times what the OP likely paid for the Tokina 11-16mm lens (which is widely available for the vicinity of $500-600).

Thanks all for the information, I really appreciate it, as I have said I think I will wait and just play with the 12-40mm for the time being, I will be getting the Pany fisheye so I think this will keep me satisfied for the time being.

I'd recommend the Rokinon - as it's much less costly, and also more compact and very sharp. You lose AF, but AF is really not important with a lens this wide.

 

[Longimanus1975]

is the Rokinon the 7.5mm fisheye?

 

[jamespetts]

Yes.

 

[letsgofishing]

Yes.

Rectilinear fisheye actually....

 

[jamespetts]

Rectilinear fisheye actually....

That's a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it?

 

[dougjgreen]

Rectilinear fisheye actually....

I think you mean rectangular fisheye. There's no such thing as a rectilinear fisheye

That's a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it?

Yes

 

[Trinurse]

I actually sold all of my Nikon gear and got the Tokina 11-16 and a Metabones Speedbooster for my E-M5 and have amazing results. Effective FoV is 8-11mm at f2.0 with sharpness out to all corners and fantastic contrast and I can use filters. I'm very happy with the results.

 

[Grinch]

Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the 7-14 f4.0 can use filters you just have to either invest in a filter holder set-up and filters, or modify lens with filter holder from Lumix 8 mm fisheye lens and go with gel filters cut to size. Same modification used with written gel filter to avoid purple blob. Not an overly difficult mod from explanations available. One that was modified was up for sale here within the last 6 months and would've been perfect for you. Why buy an F2.8 when your not gonna use it, maybe I'm wrong but landscapes aren't usually shot at F2.8, never mind F4 for that matter. An F4 7-14 and filter holders with filters, or the mod route is gonna be way cheaper than the F2.8 I'm guessing. Research a little, and let us know if this seems more viable, than wait for glass that isn't available and may still not have a filter thread. Good luck.

 

[Longimanus1975]

Grinch, I totally agree with you about the 2.8 for landscapes and it looks as if it will not accept filters as well, I wouldn't mind the Pany 7-14 but am unsure about the filter situation, maybe I need to do a bit of googling to see what can be done, if you have any links that would be great.

Its early days at the minute so I don't need to rush into it at all