Kenko Tokina enters cine lens market with 16-28mm T3.0 wide zoom

The ever-increasing video capability of digital SLRs has seen manufacturers such as Canon, Samyang and Zeiss make video-optimised versions of their conventional lenses, and now Kenko Tokina is getting in on the act. The Tokina 16-28mm T3.0 is a manual focus version of the AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX wideangle zoom, with a redesigned barrel that features the usual refinements for video work, including geared focus, zoom and aperture rings, and scales designed to be read from the side of the camera. It’ll be made in Canon EF and Arri PL mounts, with a suggested retail price of ¥580,000 – almost 5 times that of the lens it’s based on.

The Tokina 16-28mm T3.0 cine lens is based on the company’s AT-X 16-28mm f2.8 Pro FX for full frame SLRs

Lens reviews update: DxOMark data for Nikon-fit full frame wideangles

Tokina announces 16-28mm F2.8 lens for Canon &  Nikon

Tokina offers US pricing for AT-X 12-28mm F4 Pro DX lens

Tokina to ship AT-X 12-28 F4 PRO DX lens for Nikon from April 2013



no tokina for pentax??


i forget who makes it. but, there is a company in the US that buys Nikon 14-24/2.8 lenses and completely rehouses them in a cine body.


I’m guessing Tokina’s extra-high CA’s are included free of charge here?

Richard Murdey


(slow intake of breath, backs away carefully)


They may have reworked some of the mechanisms to provide for parfocal zooming. That would certainly account for an increased price.


based on the optical diagram, they are the same.

Andy Crowe

According that lens rentals blog post that Andy W linked to the cine version of lenses are more expensive because they’re built to considerably better tolerances than regular consumer lenses


C’mon. They are more expensive because they can charge more.
And, ALL lenses can resolve 4K …


For 5 times the price one would hope that they improve on their dire multi-coatings. Cine means atmosphere and atmosphere requires plenty of backlighting.


Where the heck is Tokina’s 70-200 f4??

It was announced over a year ago.


Seriously? The 16-28mm is a great lens, but 5 TIMES the price?! Samyang’s cine versions are something like $50 more, if that. I suppose this will still be cheaper than the competition though.

Andy Westlake

Samyang is very much the exception rather than the rule here. Roger Cicala’s recent blog post There is No Perfect Lens makes an interesting case for why movie lenses tend to be substantially more expensive than the stills version of the same optical design.

Bob Howland

Actually this somewhat older blog post makes a better one:


I don’t think they will make substantial better quality control on this lens – certainly not the way Roger suggests that cinema lenses need to be highly calibrated in his blog. The optical specs are the same as the normal lens, it’s really just the barrel which is different. I think they look at it as a niche product, selling few copies to pros that can afford it.

Andy Crowe


Just because the optical layout is the same doesn’t mean the cine version isn’t built to better tolerances.


The differences are almost entirely mechanical, considering the largest cost in optical designs are the optics themselves the Samyang scenario ‘should’ be the rule. That said, the far more limited production runs will increase costs per unit substantially.

Source Article from