Tokina Lens?

[dankearl]

I am looking for a Fx wide angle lens for my D800.
I dabble in landscape and am looking for something less expensive than Nikon FX lens.
I am thinking the Tokina 16-28 or the 17-35.
The 16-28 has better reviews but does not accept threaded filters, which I think is a must for Landscape photography.
The 17-35 is not very expensive, is it decent quality?
Thanks.

[Miguel Palaviccini]

Well, if threaded filters are a must, then that rules out the Tokina 16-28 (which I've read some great things about). Have you considered the 16-35 f/4? If you aren't shooting any start shots (and hence don't need the f/2.8), then this might be the ticket for you. I know it's a bit pricier, but it does accept the threaded filters.

I don't know much about the 17-35 Tokina, but I do know that they have an excellent 17 f/3.5 prime.

[Kevin Harding]

I've heard a lot of good things about the Tokina 17/3.5 or there's the Tokina 17-35/4. Also Tamron 17-35/2.8-4 though I don't know anything about that one.

EDIT - see Miguel got there first !

[Ian Cassell]

I love my Tamron 17-50/2.8 (I have the original version and not the image stabilized one). I use this as my regular walk-around lens and have had it now for about 6 years with no issues whatsoever. The optics are excellent. The only down-side is that it is not an ultrasonic focus and, thus, focuses a bit slower. It uses 67mm filters.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/forums/showthread.php/106201-Sedona-Overlook?highlight=sedona

Ooops .... not compatible with full-frame :( sorry ...

[ericbowles]

Both of the Tokina lenses have shortcomings in comparison to the Nikon 16-35. The Tokina 16-28 seems to be positioned as an alternative to the Nikon 14-24. The 16-28 is relatively heavy and does not accept filters, but optically is very good. Like the 14-24, it lacks VR. The longer focal length of the 16-28 is a little bit of a shortcoming compared to the 14-24.

The Tokina 17-35 seems positioned as an alternative to the Nikon 16-35, but it does not have VR. A 1mm difference at the wide end is a small issue. Optically the reports are pretty good but I have not seen enough comparable test results to draw conclusions. The other issue is it uses 82mm filters - so a Vari-N-Duo is not available and you need additional filters if that's relevant to you and your subjects.

I have the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR. I chose it over the alternatives including the Nikon 14-24. I spend a lot of time photographing streams and waterfalls, so being able to use a CP or the Vari-N-Duo is very important. Optically, the 16-35 is very good. The biggest shortcoming is with distortion, but Nikon and others readily correct distortion. The 16-35 is also a little soft in the corners, but that is really because it is very wide. Corner softness is normal in an ultrawide. VR can be a nice plus for some types of photography. I have some regular locations where I am shooting from a canoe or a flat bottom boat, and tripods do not provide enough stability.

The other lens that you might consider as an alternative is the Sigma 15-30. The Sigma is a little older design released around 2005. Optically it is pretty good. It does not accept filters or have VR, but it is readily available used for around $350. I had a copy and sold it in favor of the Nikon 16-35.
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/311-...report--review