Open

by damned truths

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am comparing two versions of Tokina 11-16 mm lenses for Nikon mount:

vs.

As far as I can tell from producer's website, one difference is internal focus motor in newer lens, so AF would work on bodies without AF motor.

Is there any other significant difference? I have Nikon with built in AF motor, so does it make sense to buy DX-II ? The price is maybe 5% higher, about 570€ vs. 599€ for newer model.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

The built-in motor is a huge difference. Even if it isn't relevant for your camera, its presence or absense will be very significant should you ever choose to sell it. And between now and then it may also matter if you want to loan out the lens to a friend to try.

I've seen some different results for lens sharpness and behaviour, but I wouldn't consider them to be significant. Not only do variations between tests, margins of error, and sample variation make lens-to-lens comparisons problematic, there's ample proof that the original 11-16mm lens was capable of capturing excellent photographs so there's no need to be concerned with its quality.

share|improve this answer

DxOMark's review believes the DX II to be fractionally less sharp than the original, but with less variability throughout the range. My understanding would also be that the in-lens motor would be quicker and quieter than than driving it via the in-body motor, but I'm not a Nikon shooter so I could well be wrong on that.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.