At CP+ Tokina announced a new AT-X 11-6mm f/2.8 PRO DX V Cine lens. The Spanish site DSLRmagazine says that lens will be available with Micro Four Thirds mount too. There is no info about the price yet.
Small early specs:
close focus 30cm
550g weight
84mm height
27 Responses
That lens is going to have to be really, really cheap to compete with the native M4/3 12-35 and 12-40 lenses that just 1mm longer at the wide end, but vastly more flexible.
Does seem a bit of an oddball choice, but people seem to like choice
No, people don’t really like to have a choice: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice
What you want is that you do not have a choice, you just need to get what you need.
Like with Olympus Pro line.
8mm fisheye – 7-14mm – 12-40mm – 40-150mm – 300mm.
Do you spot it? There is no choice, there is just a one decisions required to be made.
You don’t go in the store and say “I would like to see f/2.8, f4 and f/5.6 models from the 24-70mm and then f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6 models from 70-200mm”.
More you give the choice to person, more difficulty it is to make the correct choice, and less happy that person is no matter what choice he did because there is always the “If I just would have got that another one”.
Yes ma’am
I did say people like choice, clever clogs, I did not specifically say lenses. Clothes, cars, choices
It’s a pretty nice ultra-wide on APS, pretty odd on 4/3
22-32 (equiv.) is a weird range, but very useful, especially with f/2.8. I like it that it has a filter thread.
Close focus could use to be less; maybe with the crop, they could change that. Flare might be a problem.
There is already a Zuiko Digital 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 for 4/3, which is perhaps not a superb lens, but a decent one. And there used to be a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 with 4/3 mount. The ZD 11-22 always used to be a nice option for people who wanted a moderately fast lens but didn’t need an extremely wide angle, with the added value of being a lens that was much less prone to flare and ghosting than the more extreme ones.
The Tokina, if it really comes for m43, will clearly be a videographer’s lens, and as such it will probably have its merits. For my purposes, I would rather expect a new and much more compact mirrorless design. Then again, I would applaud Tokina finally adding to the number of AF-capable lens manufacturers for m43, which may lead to more interesting lenses some time in the future, too.
The ZD 11-22 is more than “decent”. Actually, it’s still my favorite zoom lens.
I still use it on my E-M1, too, because the existing m43 ultra-wide angle options don’t offer enough value for money, for my tastes. Significantly stopped down, the frame edges do nearly become sharp, but I can’t see that the 11-22 would really live up to its reputation as a “HQ” lens when used on the E-M1. Actually, when comparing the 14-22mm range, I find the Panasonic/Leica 14-150mm Four Thirds superzoom to deliver better image quality across the frame. Which is why I don’t use the 11-22 really that often – only when I absolutely need the widest angle.
Agree with Sneye, might not be superb but it is a very, very good lens and lives on my 4/3 body (albeit E-1, tried a 620, while results were good handling was dreadful). So it’s the E-1, should try it on EM-1 thou tend to use 9-18 for that width or the superb 12mm.
Freud typo. 6mm f2.8? That would be a dream come true..
This is clearly a video lens as indicated by the big red V. It’s not meant to be an alternative to the native 12-35 and 12-40 2.8 zoom lenses made for photography.
I see very little reason for a video shooter to go with a native m4/3 mount for this lens. Getting an SLR mount instead lets you use a speedbooster, and doesn’t limit compatibility for future camera bodies. You’ll be focusing manually anyways so AF isn’t really a concern.
I have this lens in a Nikon mount. Coupled with a Metabones Speedbooster it makes an excellent ultra wide angle. Instead of 11-16 f2.8, it becomes 7.7-11.2 f2.0. Very good indoors, in museums, or UWA for landscapes.
Unless the lens is designed for MFT, there’s little point in buying an MFT mount version.
Canon EF version + Speedbooster + normal adapter is the way to go. This way, you get 8-11 f/2 in addition to 11-16 f/2.8, depending on which adapter you use. So a nice 16-32 equivalent in terms of FOV. And it’s gonna be easier to resell later. And adapters are a one time buy, you could use them with the new Samyang 135 f/2, and you’d get 95 f/1.4. And so on.
Agree.
Well, this way you get AF if you want it. Less important on a cine lens…
Ah, yeah, forgot about that. But with a lens like this, I could see myself trading AF for wider FOV and extra stop of light.
But I guess that’s a trade-off, so indeed MFT version might make sense. Not in case of Samyang lenses, thought.
I’d still opt for the Speedbooster option. With that short of a focal length, focusing is just not an issue. Here’s an example video shot entirely with the adapted Tokina 11-16 on my GH3. Equivalent focal length of ~8 – 11 mm at f2. When it looks like it is a tighter shot it is usually just a still that has been cropped to give the appearance of a longer focal length. The adapted Tokina is great for getting wide angle in u43.
https://vimeo.com/82653450
Isn’t the speedbooster still like $600? That’s not something that everyone can just dismiss out-of-hand.
No, the Nikon F to u43 Metabones Speedbooster was and still is $429 new. Amortized across a couple lenses, it becomes a good purchase. How else to get an UWA lens with f2 in u43 format? I have a few other old Nikon lenses I got from E-bay dirt cheap, and the the Speedbooster also makes them interesting. Like an old Nikon E Series 70-210 f4 that becomes a 50-150 f2.8, or, the inexpensive used Nikon Mount Rokinon 85 mm f1.4 that becomes a 60mm f1.0. So, yes, the initial cost of a Speedbooster is high, but, old Nikon mount lenses are abundant and inexpensive on E-bay, and make for some interesting ‘new’ lenses when adapted with the Metabones.
But…no question, the 11-16 Tokina is the most useful, since there is just no other way to get an UWA in u43 without going Fisheye.
boring focal length, another APS-C with m43 mount…
I don’t get what that is a picture of? The Tokina cine 11-16mm does not look like that, that looks like a weird mockup or something with a standard 11-16mm with FF gear tacked on, a red ring and a big V. The actual cine version doesn’t have AF either from memory.
AH i already wondered why the picture had no geared zoom ring and lack of apperture ring.
the picture above would make a pathetic cine lens.
There are already cine versions of the Tokina 11-16.2.8 lens. It is available in Canon EF
and micro43 mounts; both are manual focus T3.0 lenses with 3 ring controls –
zoom, focus, and aperture, all are set manually, and have the usual tooth
gearing.
This new version seems to be a cross between the standard AF and manual cine versions – AF when you want it, or focus manually through the gear teeth. Zoom is by the standard ring, and aperture set by the eos camera. If there is going to be a micro four thirds version it implies autofocus and aperture control through the camera. Although no details of mounts are mentioned officially.
For press release see: http://www.tokinalens.com/news/press/N0000040
It is already available as a Cine lens:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1044201-REG/tokina_tc_116m43_cinema_atx_11_16mm_t3_0.html