Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 vs. something

<p>so, i have received some comments on the following lenses, but all had some good and some bad, which makes it quite difficult to decide.</p>

<p>Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8<br>

Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 HSM (new version)</p>

<p>these two lenses have some good and bad aspects to it, and in terms of image quality, contrast and build quality, which would you prefer?<br>

i know that the Tokina will actually perform quite well in FX format @ 16mm, with no black shades. when stopped down to f/4, the lens is sharp in FX format! however, the Sigma does not perform any good in FX format.<br>

i am now using the D300s, but i am also concerned about switching to FX later and able to use the lenses that i buy now. should i consider this as a priority when choosing these wide angle lenses?</p>

<p>Forget about FX. They're both useful in a pinch, but were not designed to have sharp corners on FX. Think about DX instead and buy for FX when you finally do upgrade. Don't try and buy for both.</p>

<p>The Tokina is AMAZING if you can find one in stock. (I wrote the review here at photo.net for that lens.) Very manageable distortion, seriously sharp all the way to the corners even at f4 and f5.6 (best aperture for this lens imho), quick focusing, with a manual focus over-ride that I like even better than full-time AF-S over-ride. Seriously. I'd rather have the Tokina clutch mechanism than AF-S. The new Sigma got some not-so-good reviews, though the older slower Sigma has a lot of fans around here.</p>

<p>The Tokina has such a limited zoom range that you really have to think carefully about that. I think of it as an 11mm prime with extension to 16mm. For instance, the Sigma and the various 10/12-24s available out there are much more "useful" at the long end if you need to get into more "semi-normal" territory. Only buy one of these lenses if you're in love with ultra-ultra-wide.</p>

<p>I like the tokina 12-24 F4 for DX and it works for FX at @18-24mm if that really matters to you...</p>

<p>just make sure that the super wides will be useful to you. i'm not a super wide shooter but between the two, i'd get the tokina for brightness and speed.</p>

<p>It really comes down to the brighter 1 stop or the extra range of 17-24mm (tokina) or 17-20mm (sigma). No one can decide for you except yourself...</p>

<p>Go look for a Sigma 12-24 wide on DX amazing wide on FX.</p>

<p>Sigma 12-24 is awful big and heavy. No filters, not worth getting for DX, there are better choices. It's a solid hunk of glass, though. Very impressive.</p>

<p>Just curious, Long, have you bought any of the lenses you've been asking about? Your requests seem to run the gamut, like maybe you're not sure how you want to shoot with them yet, so I'm just curious if we are being any help to you.</p>

<p>Pick the one that gives you the speed and range required for DX. If you ever go to FX then get a wide zoom meeting those needs.</p>

<p>i think it kind of depends on intended use and what else is in your bag. i have the tokina 12-24. it's awesome for landscapes, except when the 12mm wide end feels constraining. however the fact that the long end goes to 24mm makes it much more suitable for covering events/PJ/documentary -type stuff. in such cases, it pairs well with my 28-75/2.8 and my 50-150/2.8, especially when i shoot with two bodies.</p>

<p>OTOH, the f/4 makes it too slow for club/concert shooting, so in that situation i typically use the tokina 17-50/2.8 or maybe the sigma 15mm/2.8 fisheye. and as i mentioned before, 12mm is sometimes not wide enough.</p>

<p>if i was buying now, i'd probably get the 11-16.</p>

<p>in your situation, i'd say it depends on how often you will actually shoot with a UWA, and if you have a 16,17, or 18-xx/2.8 fast zoom to make up for the 11-16's limited range. also, if you really need 2.8 or not. if you are just shooting landscape on a tripod, you're probably going to be stopping down, anyway, so the 10-20 would be fine.</p>

<p>as for FX compatibility, forget about it until you have an FX body. but if you do go FX and need to sell your UWA, the 11-16 has a higher resale value.</p>

 

<p>thx for your help everyone</p>

<p>i also know about the Tokina 12-24 f/4, but it was designed before the 11-16, meaning that more advanced technology and coating has been put into the 11-16. i have handled the 11-16 a few months ago in a camera shop, seeing the FOV of a 11mm lens on a DX body. however, it wasn't much use because it was quite difficult to judge when shooting inside.</p>

<p>can somebody give me some figures about the 11-16, ones that i never seem to find on the internet. does the 11-16 lens @ 11mm give you a nearly 180 degree view, just like a fisheye without distortion?</p>

<p><strong>@ Peter,</strong><br>

hello, it's u again! yea, back in few months, i was asking about the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 HSM vs. the Nikon. i went for the Sigma because i wanted a better tele zoom, which Sigma did not have at that moment. and now, i am greedy, wanting the Nikon 24-70!<br>

Then, Sigma announced a new 70-200 OS HSM and the Nikon 70-200 VR II, and in May, i finally got the Nikon one in my hands! omg, what a piece of wonderful glass for simply everything, though expensive..</p>

<p>Long,</p>

<p>There is not a significant difference in the coatings and design between the 12-24 and the 11-16, truly. They are very similar. At f5.6 on a sturdy tripod, they probably look the same at any size up to 11 x 14. It's angle of view is 104°~82°. All spec are here. http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx116prodx-b.html</p>

<p>So you have to decide, do I need the faster f2.8 aperture and extra 1mm on the wide end or do I need the extra 8mm on the long end and can I live with f4. </p>

<p>Ultimately, most people are better served by a 12-24 (or the Nikon 10-24) than the very very limiting 11-16, but it does have spectacular image quality.</p>

<p>I'm glad we are helping!</p>

I own the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and the old Sigma 10-20/4.5-5.6. No doubt, the Tokina is the brighter lens, it is the better lens, but I don't like it. Why? Minimum focus distance.

 

The Tokina focuses only to 30cm, while every other super-wide goes to 24cm. Given that all those lenses are about 10cm long with an optical focal length of about 1cm, that makes full 9cm to subtract, because minimum focus distance is not measured from subject to effective focal plane, it is measured back to the real sensor plane. Thus we are really talking about the difference between 21cm and 15cm, and that's really a visible difference in perspective.

 

Thus, if you shoot ultra-wide for the distorted perspective, if you like to use small things in the foreground going unproportionally big, the Tokina is not really your lens. It's not as wide as the Sigma (yes, down at those short focal lengths, one millimeter counts), and it won't let you go as near.

 

If you are more after the natural perspectives anyway, go get the Tokina. No doubt about it.

 

But why not bring another contender to the ring? I bought the new Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6 a few days ago, and this is a marvelous lens. 8mm! That's the same effective focal length as the Sigma 12-24 on FX, and the lens is of excellent quality. It's really damn wide though :)

 

As always when I when I buy a new lens lately, I have begun to write a series of blog entries that will end up forming kind of a review. Not much there yet, but if you're interested, it's at http://manessinger.com/tag/sigma-8-16mm-f4-5-5-6-dc-review

 

Well, in fact the Sigma 8-16 is really a niche product. At the moment I use it daily, and I use it on 8mm only, but I really struggle. It's as wide as a fish, and for the limited use that it will get, it's probably too expensive. But then, it's a challenge and I like challenges :)

<p>"i also know about the Tokina 12-24 f/4, but it was designed before the 11-16, meaning that more advanced technology and coating has been put into the 11-16."</p>

<p>not really. it's basically the same design. there is a newer version of the 12-24 with an anti-flare coating and a bigger price tag, but the technology on the 11-16 isnt anything extra special, it's just wider by 1mm and more prime-like in its performance due to the smaller zoom range. oh, and that 2.8.</p>

<p>"most people are better served by a 12-24 (or the Nikon 10-24) than the very very limiting 11-16, but it does have spectacular image quality."</p>

<p>10-24 is a great range, but i've heard the nikon 12-24 has less distortion at wider angles. also, the tokina 12-24 is eerily similar to the 12-24, slightly different optical formulas and strengths and weaknesses.</p>

<p>so again,i think you really have to look at intended usage. if you really need 2.8 and can live with limited range, get the 11-16. but if you're like most of us and dont actually use an UWA as much as other lenses, then the tokina 12-24 and sigma 10-20 are both good values, while the nikon 10-24 is the most versatile. i'd forget the tamron 10-24 as i've heard its softer than a marshmellow in butter.</p>

<p>here's a 12-24 shot from a street fair i shot this past weekend. used f/8 pretty much the entire time and the entire 12-24 range. 11-16 would have been problematic--i would have been forced to use two bodies. as it was, i had another body with me but it stayed in my bag the whole time.</p><div></div>

<p>I just bought the Sigma after torturing myself over this for about 6 months. I wanted some wiggle room and I don't do much low light shooting at that range..more concert stuff long range like 70-200 so for me the sigma fit the bill..Its light.. its quick to focus..and its about $150 less then the Tokina. I love it..The only gripe I have is the cap...went to my local camera store today and bought a nikon 77mm..and now I am a happy camper. I have a picture taken with this lens on this past wed pics..down towards bottom of page..its boats in a marina..really love the 10mm ..very very wide. and very fun to shoot wide..If I had more cash I would have bought the Nikon 10-24 for sure but I don't think I will be using it enough to warrant that kind of money. LOts of great reviews on Tokina as well. Did not know about the new sigma 8-16..OMG now I am really tortured...LOL</p>

<blockquote>

<p>LOts of great reviews on Tokina as well. Did not know about the new sigma 8-16..OMG now I am really tortured...LOL</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are extreme wides in vogue these days? Unless one is doing tight interior or extreme landscape, I really doubt 8mm, 10mm or even 11mm is at all that useful...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...used f/8 pretty much the entire time and the entire 12-24 range. 11-16 would have been problematic--i would have been forced to use two bodies. as it was, i had another body with me but it stayed in my bag the whole time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My view is similar to Eric's above comment. Having the flexibility of really wide (12mm) to a wide normal (24mm on DX) save me from shooting with 2 bodies at one time...</p>

<p>One lens (Tokina 12-24mm F4) for all (Amphawa Floating Market) three photos:<br>

<a><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9237282_3e8f88a67c_o.jpg" alt="" width="696" height="466" /></a><br>

@12mm</p>

<p><a><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9237283_8a233d9e92_o.jpg" alt="" width="696" height="466" /></a><br>

@14mm</p>

<p><a><img src="http://static.zooomr.com/images/9237284_78d872ae6c_o.jpg" alt="" width="696" height="466" /></a><br>

@24mm</p>

<p>If you are worried about switching to FX look at the Sigma 12-24 f/4-5.6 EX DG. You could also get a DX lens and continue using it on a Nikon FX body that can switch to DX (I believe that they do that).</p>

<p>thx for your help again!</p>

<p>most of you out there seems to prefer zoom versatility over the f/2.8. since i will be using this lens pretty much in daytime, f/4 should be ok. but one question: do f/2.8 have better resale prices than slower lenses, ie. the 11-16 vs. the 12-24?</p>

<p>the two lenses on my list now is either the Tokina 12-24mm or the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5. i hvn't got much reviews about the f/3.5 version here or on the internet, so it's a really hard choice. two questions:<br>

1. is there a Tokina 12-24mm <strong>II</strong> out there? some of you said there was a new version of this Tokina.<br>

2. would you prefer Tokina, the king of lenses, or the Sigma for a gamble, with 2mm more on the wide?</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5227004">Mark Drutz</a><br>

i wouldn't consider the FX Sigma 12-24 because there are many bad reviews on it. and if i were to switch to FX format, i wouldn't want to use it in DX crop mode anymore. that's the meaning of a D700 or a D3s, their magnificent FX sensor!</p>

<p>I actually owned and used the Sigma 10-20mm and it was an excellent lens. When I switched to FX, I sold it and now own and use the Sigma 12-24mm and it is excellent. I suggest you try which ever lens you think you want so you can see and evaluate its performance for yourself. You may be pleasantly surprised.</p>

<p>Don't forget there are two Sigma 10-20s. I've seen a few reviews that say the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 has some real issues with corners while the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 is much sharper and Thom Hogan says he uses this over the equivalent Nikkor.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon?start=1</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/308-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-dc-ex-hsm-lab-test-report--review?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/308-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-dc-ex-hsm-lab-test-report--review?start=1</a></p>

<p>I've been debating this problem myself and have come to the conclusion that either the variable aperture Sigma or the Tokina 12-24 I is the way to go. There is a Tokina 12-24 II, but from what I've heard you gain an internal motor for focusing and a few new lens coatings. I'm on a budget, so I'm leaning towards the older version.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...most of you out there seems to prefer zoom versatility over the f/2.8</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, I prefer a <strong>useful zoom range</strong> and the <strong>speed of f2.8</strong> but is there one available for DX? For me, the 14-24mm end get alot more use than the 12-14mm of the zoom. I have the 17-35mm f2.8 for FX...</p>

<p>Leslie,<br>

I wondered myself WHY all the hype of the wide angle.."Ultrawides rub the viewer's nose in your subject. Properly used, ultrawides grab your viewer and yank him into the middle of your situation." a quote from KRockwell and its true..they are not so much for landcapes as they are for closer work..and if you ever get a chance to borrow one..you will be hooked. I found I was limited with the 18mm for certain things I wanted to do..it took many of these situations fo me to plop down $500 to purchase one of these specialty lenses..I am happy I did.</p>

<p>Long,</p>

<p>the wonderful thing about the f2.8 aperture isn't so much that you can shoot wide open as it is that when you shoot at f4 you're one stop down, and at f5.6 instead of being 0 - 1 stop down, you're 2 stops down in the sweet spot of the lens.</p>

<p>Buy the Tokina for a single-purpose lens that goes really wide, buy one of the ones that go to 24 for a lens you an leave on for some more "normal stuff".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...I found I was limited with the 18mm for certain things I wanted to do..it took many of these situations fo me to plop down $500 to purchase one of these specialty lenses..I am happy I did.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, Mary...let's see some of them pics of what you're talking about or as you said, "I was limited with the 18mm for certain things I wanted to do". BTW, I'm not debating whether wider angles such as the 10mm are wanted on rare occasions but just how often it is needed. My experience is that the occasions are rare for normal shooting.</p>

<p>...On the other hand, the 16-24mm on DX range is used quite often to say the least. As far as Rockwell, he's too contradicting...I like some of his views while others are just too funny:)))</p>

<p>thx for your comments!</p>

<p>i think i will be leaning on the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 since i won't need the 10mm, and i think i would prefer a constant f/4 rather than a variable aperture of f/4-5.6.</p>

<p>as <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1722374">Henry Arnn</a> has said above, the main difference between the I and II version is the built-in motor. i currently use the D300s, which has a built-in motor inside the body. buying the version I will AF on my camera, but will the version II focus even faster?<br>

if there is not a single difference in terms of image quality and contrast, i would like the version I because the version II costs more, and has a red line on the lens, which is not at all good.</p>

<p>leslie, great pics.</p>

<p>long, the tokina 12-24 is a wise choice, especially the original version which is $100 cheaper now than when i bought it new. the BiM actually focuses slower than screw-drive.it's a micromotor, not an AF-S equivalent, so on a body like the d300/d300s screw-drive should be pretty fast. i actually use the 12-24 a lot om my d80 and the focus is pretty snappy. it wasnt at all challenged by this shot here, where i wanted the background focused and the foreground defocused.</p><div></div>