Nikon 10-24 f3.5 4.5 or Tokina 11-20 f2.8

Please help me to come out of dilemma Nikon 10-24 f3.5 4.5 or Tokina 11-20 f2.8, I am badly confused. Price is not the issue.

 

Thanks

What's there to be confused about? More range but variable aperture vs more restricted range but constant f/2.8. Pick one or the other depending on your needs.

Since there still is no DX wide-angle zoom with VR, to me f/2.8 is more important than the larger range; so I pick the Tokina over the Nikon any day. Still the same reason why I picked the Tokina 11-16/2.8 despite owning the Nikon 12-24/4 at the time (and eventually sold the Nikon).

 

I might even be tempted to consider the Tokina 14-20/2 instead even though 14mm isn't all that wide on DX.

Since there still is no DX wide-angle zoom with VR, etc

 

I do not agree about the ultra wide for DX without VR , the Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD lens for Nikon for Nikon does offer VC which is Tamrons version of VR and has the same range ( 10 -24.. :-) ) ...

They look very close. I'd go with the Tokina mainly because it is f2.8. I shoot at night a lot.

DxO:

Tokina AT-X 11-20 F2.8 PRO DX Nikon on Nikon D500 vs Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD Nikon vs Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED on Nikon D500 | DxOMark

 

 

Kent in SD

Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD

Yep, announced Feb 6, 2017. Completely missed that announcement :(

 

Certainly a lens I would include in my considerations. Unless you always shoot from a tripod, VR/VC is very handy.

 

Not very good corner performance is something all the DX superwide zooms share to some extent. A result of being designed with a flange-to-sensor distance of the larger FX format and all the optical compromises that entails.

It depends on what other lenses you are likely to carry. If this is to be the only wide lens you take with you, the Nikon's range to 24mm may be more important. If you're also carrying a 17-something zoom, or even a 24- or 28-something, then the f/2.8 aperture of the Tokina for your ultra-wide will serve you better. BTW, in DX, I use a Tokina 11-16mm (bought before the 11-20mm came out) along with a 17-50mm f/2.8.

It depends on what other lenses you are likely to carry.

Good point. Though for me, having a split at 24mm on DX has not worked out well; one at 16mm worked out a lot better, even though it may relegate the superwide to only occasional usage. I have now moved on the FX, and gave my 11-16 to my wife, who uses it in conjunction with a 16-80. I haven't bothered to upgrade the 11-16 to the 11-20 as I don't see enough gain in that move. Luckily, there are excellent mid-range zooms available on DX, something that can't be said for FX (unless one is willing to lay out for the large and heavy f/2.8 options available).

Having a constant f2.8 in a zoom can be a major advantage if you shoot at low light a lot. It can also be a huge disadvantage if the weight bothers you. For wide angles, I tend to stop down most of the time for more depth of field and don't need f2.8, but that is just me preference.