We've relaunched as a full community! Get the scoop:

April 10, 2013

NAB Video: Tokina New Cinema Lenses

The popular Tokina 11-16 F2.8 has now received the royal 'cinema' treatment with complete manual control, de-clicked aperture, pitched and calibrated to a T3. In addition, Tokina also introduces some new glass, get all the info directly from the floor at NAB 2013 from FreshDV:

These are exciting options for those of us who are already familiar and fond with Tokina's optics. I'm surprised they hadn't brought this sooner, considering the popularity of the lens. Are you excited about this offering from Tokina? Share below.

Your Comment

54 Comments

If they made this in PL mount I think Duclos is going to be very upset. Amazing what a diamond in the rough lens the 11-16 is for video.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

Cool

Now it's a must-have piece of equipment for BMCC and BMPC too. I think

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Andrey Valentsov

Sweet, was considering ordering the other one is it possible it might cost less seeing as I guess there will be no AF?

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Chris Lambert

It'll probably cost in the 1000-1200 range considering he said "less than 2K"

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

yeh my bad posted first watched vid second I'll prob just get the af version and a samyang for that price

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Chris Lambert

A zip gear gets you most of the way their to a geared cinema lens, but having de-clicked Tstops is marvelous. That said I've tried the samyang, and it's nowhere near as optically nice as the Tokina. It's amazing how good of a lens that is for 600 dollars (or less). The only thing that sucks is the build quality, which blows. Hence the Duclos version, which is stripped down, re-geared, and re-housed, and it goes from being a great lens to basically amazing.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

the 16-28 photo version is under $1,000 I think the price raise on these lenses is not justified. considering it seems similar to the rokina modification...even if the mechanics are better....an extra $4,000 grand + I hope they did something more then just rehouse the same optics. The cine lens market needs to balance out a bit still.

I think there need to be photo-priced lens options for cine. Remember when photo lenses had proper mechanics and were built right....that is all that we need + a focus gear and no click stops. things like large number of iris blade, minimized breathing, and super low flare optics are great, but the indie market needs something closer to a professional item for a realistic price point.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
chimski

Just rent the cine-lenses that you need per project. I don't get the new generation's obsession with owning and buying everything, thats not how 80% of productions work..

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

For what you'd pay to rent something for a year, you could own it forever. If it's something you only need for one or two shots, then yea, rent. But if it's something you're going to use constantly (like lenses) renting doesn't make much financial sense.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Jake

A year? More like a month if even that. Owning is great if you can swing it. It just makes me way more productive and motivated to shoot just knowing that I have most of what I need at my disposal. Going to the rental house, dealing with the insurance, etc... Is fine, but for me at least, it just slows the process down.

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
Gene Sung

from purely a psychological perspective, I find renting very limiting. The idea that I have to reach into my wallet any time I want to make something... coupled with then having an extremely short window with which to produce something... for me, that really interferes with my creative process. Owning my gear gives me a sense that "nothing is stopping me." It dramatically lowers the stakes of low budget productions.

That said, I do draw the line at $5000 lenses. When a $600 lens gets you 95% of the way there, why bother?

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
dv

CoSign they lost me with the $5,500 mark, which is really dissapointing considering 16-28 length on a full frame for pl, its damnn near close to ziess cp prime cinema lens price point and while tokina are sharp in video its dissapointing price wise, these lens should not be more than 1800 across the board considering that they are just rehoused.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
JayClout

You buy the MECHANICAL stuff you use all the time- follow focus, rigs, maybe a monitor, etc.

But cameras and lenses, every one of your projects has a different aesthetic, right? Why would you use the same paint set for every painting? Variety is the spice of life. I sold my camera and my stuff and even though I have a basic set of lenses I strive to use different gear every time

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

If your gear is what is creating your aesthetic you need to rethink what your doing.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
chimski

What do you do? Close your eyes and will images into existence from nothing?

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Gabe

i think you tried really hard to be profound with that comment but you fell flat on your face

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

If you're talking lenses. Those are a great investment.
Camera bodies and related parts equipment are still great to buy if you keep it for a year or two. When reselling, you'll only lose a couple of hundred dollars from the purchase which still comes out better than renting.

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
VINCEGORTHO

Lighting and color correction/color grading will go a lot further in creating your feeling than the camera and lens. And to use your own example, there's nothing wrong with using the same brush for different paintings.

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
Jake

We don't care how 80% of those ancient production methods work. We're doing thing differently now...

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
bwhitz

yeah, youre doing like a consumer. It's a waste of money buying the next big thing every year just to stay current. Cameras especially, as they are essentially computers now and, in the case of the BMCC, for example, they get redesigned and 1up'd before you even receive your order. Lenses are timeless, always have a good set of those (or sets) and a decent tripod and follow focus is nice but everything else it just makes more sense for a large company to deal with the depreciation and not you. I feel sorry for all the people that pulled massive loans to get reds and then they dropped the price on them without telling you (leaving you upside down paying monthly payments on more than the market value of the camera) and/or offering you a sensor upgrade for an unholy amount of money

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
john jeffreys

Normally I disagree with your comments on this site but you are dead on the money here.

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
Dovahkiin

Don't feel sorry for them. Early adopters ALWAYS pay a premium. And, if they're doing it right, they often capitalize on or gain some benefit from being the first kids on the block to have the product in question. Most people don't get any more warning than RED gave about price drops. In fact, most people find out about it when a new product is announced that takes their model's place. You all know this is true.

Once the market saturates and prices fall, people had better have something more than "I shoot on camera XYZ" to rely on. That's where talent, style and professionalism come into play. Feel sorry for the people who don't have these things. It has been this way forever.

RED slashed the price of the Epic-X but not its capabilities. If someone made beautiful images with it before the price drop, they'll still be able to make them now and 20 years from now. That's what they should be basing their rates on. If people were considering shooting their project on it specifically for its unique features before the price drop, the drop should've actually made it more appealing. That's good news for rental houses because they can rent to more people like that more often. The truth is it's far more camera than the vast majority of readers on NFS could ever fully artistically exploit. That also goes for the F3/5/55, C100/300/500, Scarlet and, most recently, the newly announced BMPC4K.

Feel sorry for the people who'll drop $4K+ on that, make astoundingly average images, subsequently blame the camera and demand that some other manufacturer comes out with an even more sophisticated camera that they'll never make good use of. Yeah, feel sorry those people.

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
Brian

The only optic that is the same is the front element, the 16-28 is completely different inside otherwise, hence the price tag.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director
136

The readjust from rental to ownership is about price point. You used to have to rent because equipment was so expensive.... and because this is how the market worked with rental houses (which are basically just middle men...agents) the gear stayed very expensive.

But making a movie was also the least accessible thing to do. films cost prohibitive amounts of money to make. This is not good. People want to own gear so they can go and make films for less money easily and although you can argue thats good or bad or w/e for the industry or the quality of work produced in the end its just freeing and that is the right thing. freedom that is.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
chimski

I would agree with all of that but add that the rental market is changing quickly with web-based companies like BorrowLenses and LensProToGo. You used to only be able to rent expensive gear from rental houses in large cities. Now you can even rent the affordable stuff, which makes renting downright cheap and let's you literally try out any piece of gear you want without committing to any specific technology that will be obsolete next year. Now if I could just stop buying all this crap that comes out, I could take advantage of it.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply

If you're talking lenses. No. You can purchase those.
Camera bodies are interchangeable. It doesn't matter if blackmagic comes out with a new body every year. You can purchase and then resell for few hundred dollars les and still come out ahead of rental price if you manage to hold on to a body for a year.

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
VINCEGORTHO

Yet that same logic can be turned around. I shoot on an FS700 with relatively cheap stills lenses for corporate gigs, but if I were going to shoot a feature I might consider renting a set of Ultra Primes (and in the future hopefully a 4K recorder too). The advantage? I know my camera like the back of my hand, and thus can move quickly with it. So I don't think it really is as simple as "buy lenses, rent cameras". It's more like "how quickly will it pay for itself?"

April 11, 2013

0
Reply

That 11-16 looks good. Perfect for a RED one with a dumb Nikon mount. Now if they can keep it under $1000 that would be awesome.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply

the lenses price should be based on a fair mark up from the cost to manufacture based on the amount produced. and hopefully some manufactures will begin to do this in the lens market.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
chimski

That doesn't make sense unless they can sell the same number of cine lenses as still lenses. They can't.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Gabe

"based on the amount produced." ....yes the amount they produce makes a huge impact in price. but the mark up for cine lenses is not just based on that.....its based on an idea of how much cine lenses cost which is unfair.

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
chimski

good news good stuff

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
JayClout

The full-frame version they are releasing is a 16-28 T3, and will be around $5500. I'm excited about that.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
David S.

you know the photo version is under $1,000 right?

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
chimski

So after many years Tokina have finally woken up to the fact that other companies have been making money re-housing Tokina optics in precision metal barrels with de-clicked aperture, long focus through and clearly visible focus markings. So they have re-released their own lens with a de-clicked aperture, a plastic barrel and the same tiny plastic window showing the point of focus. But it will still have the premium price point associated with the word 'cinema'. Tokina have woken up, but they are still half asleep.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
TiCa

wondering why they haven't made the 11-16 in the pl mount version?

April 10, 2013

0
Reply

this looks kinda interesting ....would like to know the price point on these

http://cinescopophilia.com/zunow-imperial-series-of-fast-4k-t1-5-prime-l...

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
johnjay

I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but a Cine-Mod is less labor intensive than the original as it has no electronics/AF moving parts. The ATX II is what? 700 bucks? How do they justify a price bracket under 2k? Rokinon's model is just charging slightly more than the original version.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Steve

It's not less labor intensive, because they just throw the stuff together in the electronic version. Yes there might be more electronics inside, but the actual build quality is worse on the still lenses. Also, Rokinon is plastic and these are not.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Editor-at-Large
Shooter/Writer/Director
136

I use the Rokinon cine lenses, and I have to agree with Joe. The quality of the build (I can't really say for the optics) doesn't even compare. I was really impressed with Tokina's lenses at the show.

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
David S.

I've owned the 11-16 for my 7D before upgrading to the Mark 3. Great lens BUT at this price point for the cine version, I cannot see these flying of the shelves any time soon... Rokinon will continue to dominate for a while.

April 10, 2013

0
Reply
Desmond Williams

16-28 t3 is UNREALISTICALLY OVERPRICED. Please Tokina, get real and offer usa REALISTIC price point!!!

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
Daan Gray

I own the 11-16 stills lens, love it! The $ tag on the cine 16-28 is a bit pricey for me though. They should knock some scratch off if you go Ef or Nikon with it instead of pl

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
Beezly

well this cine makeover was alot less cheaper then Rokinon's

April 11, 2013

0
Reply

They found out people love the 11-16mm and that people considered it underpriced, so now they are taking the chance to rip us off with the cine version. Tokina needs to take note from Rokinon.

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
Dave

I think this report was poorly done; there were important questions unanswered and unasked.

What's the focus throw on the cine 11-16 and how does it compare to the Duclos version?

What is the actually transmission? (cause it says T3 but the rep said the measured light is 2.8)

Were aperture blades updated?

How accurate are the markings and do they include 1/3 stops?

How well are the iris and zoom rings dampened?

Where was it that you found the 16-28 had all new optics?

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
P337

Im actually selling my Tokina 11-16mm (switched to nikon and have the lens in canon mount) but actually think im going to the 12-24mm F4. Yeah I lose 1mm (about & degrees FOV) and 1 stop of light but I rarely used it at f2.8 so I think the cheaper price of the 12-24mm f4 will be nice, if only it had a cine version.

April 11, 2013

0
Reply
Austin

Does it hold focus? I mean if I focus on someone at 16mm and then zoom out to 11 will it be in focus? One of the prime issues I have with these photo zoom is that unlike Cine zoom of past these do not maintain the focus

April 14, 2013

0
Reply
Archie

I mean are these parfocal

April 14, 2013

0
Reply
Archie

Is the 11-16 going to be available in PL? That would make a lot of sense, as it is a crop lens and therefore it would work well on the new F series cameras, as well as Alexa and PL C300.

April 17, 2013

0
Reply

Pages