Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 - will it become a DA*?

Put this reply in an earlier thread, but think it merits a thread of its own, so I have just copied and pasted it here:-

Been tempted by either the Sigma 10-20 or the Pentax 12-24 myself, but having the DA* 16-50 wondered if it was worth spending £500 for 4mm on the Pentax.

Now, we do know that Tokina and Pentax developed the 2x DA*'s together, and from what I can make out, the 12-24 comes from the same Tokina ATX Pro range, see here:- http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/index.html

From what I have read around the net, Tokina are due to release an 11-16mm 2.8 in the same range, so, the question is, are we expecting to see a Pentax DA* 11-16mm F2.8? If so, I would definately hold out for it, as I see it being a very good match for the 2x DA*'s we currently have, with no crossover on the focal lengths, and keeping at 2.8 like the others.

Does anyone know anything on this one? Also, what do you think, am I making sense?

I think what you are saying is a reasonable supposition, or educated guess, but just think how long these lenses take to get to market...and it isn't even on the Lens Roadmap.

The 12-24mm is an exceptional lens and it's here right now.

If this lens comes in DA* variety I'd be much happier with it than with the 12-24 as I want as little overlap as possible.

11-16
16-50
50-135
200
300

Sounds perfect...

I rather like some overlap. Saves changing lenses so often.

G

I thought at first that using the 12-24mm and 24-90mm together would be a good prospect, but it wasn't. The 16-45mm was much more useful on its own and covered 95% of what I needed, simply because the two lens option involved too much lens changing and most of my shots were in the middle area.

I use:

10-17mm
12-24mm
16-45mm
50-200mm
100mm Macro

and that covers just about everything. Apart from playing with lots of other lenses from various eras of course...

Funny that... it's different things for different people! I tried to stick with the 12-24, 16-45, 50-200 combination (thinking I might go for the DA* at some point) but found that I was often wanting the 50-90mm region.

So now I've gone back to the 12-24, 24-90, 80-320 combination. The 24-90 is hardly off the camera if I'm doing people, and either the 12-24 or 16-45 will do landscape stuff very nicely.

If I had to take one lens I couldn't decide between the 16-45 or the 24-90

...but that's all going rather off topic (sorry :blush
Matt

Ok silly question time.
So what criteria does a lens have to follow too qualify as a Star* :
Why is the 12-24 not a star : also the 77mm and 31mm :
Is it just the build quality of the lens that qualifies it as a star*

Clarky: answer here = http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/technology/lens_terms.html

Matt

I must admit, I was thinking of as little overlap as possible, thinking that too much of it would be a waste of money, which is why I mentioned £500 for 4mm!

Was also looking for an excuse for a better quality lens than the Sigma 10-20, and still being new to all this, have grown to love the 2 DA*'s we have, and would like to keep the range the same, i.e. SDM / weather sealing etc. Guess that's what I get for having no 'legacy' experience and being spoiled by the newer technologies!

If the 12-24 was a DA* (which it could be!) I probably would already have it! Having taken a quick test shot with a 10-20, and a 12-24 I would just like to see a decent Pentax lens that goes down lower than 12mm I suppose!

I hate to point it out, but 11-16 is a spread of only 5mm and if it is released as a "*" then I wouldn't mind betting it'll cost you a lot more than the 12-24 does!

Having said that, I have no overlaps in my camera bag; if I want wide then the 12-24 comes out, for normal it's the 43 (which pretty much lives on the camera) and for tele/macro the 100 takes to the stage. I compensate for the inbetween lengths by moving closer to/further from the subject and/or cropping the results in Photoshop. I like the simple life!

Funnily enough, I don't find I use the 12-24 at its widest angle very often (doesn't really suit my style of photography) but at its telephoto (24mm) end (where I use it a lot) I'd be willing to put it up against any other lens (zoom or prime) at the same focal length and be pretty confident it would win out in terms of IQ - it really is a stunner!

I think it is reasonable to say that there is a pecking order that the designations don't fully reflect.

Top of the tree in every way are the Limiteds
Star lenses are next
High quality but undesignated primes are next - ie: 50mm, 100mm macro
High quality but undesignated zooms are next - ie: 12-24, 24-90, 70-210
Then good, general quality lenses - ie: 16-45
Kit lenses come last

That's my take, anyway.

G

I would agree with you if talking about the FA Ltds but does the same hold true for the newer varieties? I don't own any of the DA Ltds to be able to judge...

Will

I am allowing them the benefit of my ignorance, though I must say that I have never heard people rave about them as they do about the FAs.

And they are slow - but that's a consequence of their pancake shape.

G

The default lens for my K10D is the 16-50DA* (teles are the Sigmas)... and I have a 24-90 which gets swapped between the film cameras and the *ist D. How does your 24-90 get on with your K10?

Peter

Very, very nicely indeed. A couple of weekend's ago I had a go of a 31mm Ltd and 77mm Ltd and did a little comparison with the 24-90. Actually the 24-90 held its own - gave me new respect for it
http://www.ephotozine.com/u16488/gallery/810170
Check the two versions - V1 is 31mm Ltd, V2 is 24-90mm. Obviously this doesn't test the whole "feel" of the lens, but I was surprised all the same at how good the 24-90 is. Bokeh and rendition at 90mm is lovely for portraiture too. This was at 90mm: http://www.ephotozine.com/u16488/gallery/731379

It's been one of those "sell the 24-90.... no, keep it... no sell,... no keep" kind of years As much as I liked the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135, the 24-90 still has a good place
Matt