To wait or not to wait......

[knobstone]

<p>I have been waiting on the Tokina 11-16 to become available again, and though I know patience is a virtue, I am slowly losing mine. Patience, that is. The other has been gone for some time. The Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20 are the alternatives for me. I have the D200, and would like the f2.8 of the 11-16 for interior shots. Wanting this lens before October, I am about ready to make an alternate choice, and though the 12-24 has good reviews, a lot of folks like the 10-20. Ultimately my decision, but does anyone have any compelling thoughts to help me choose? Thanks. Joe</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>Why do you need f2.8 for interior shots? Everything is tanding there, not moving, and you need a lot of DOF.</p>

<p>1mm is 10% of the focallength and that is visible. I always liked my 10-20 on a D200/300, I sold it with pain after I bought my D700, but the Sigma 15-30 works perfect for me now.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>By "interior" do you mean shots <em>of</em> interiors, or do you mean indoor, no-flash, low-light people type shooting? The 10-20's f/3.5 at the wide end isn't that much slower that f/2.8, but does chase f/5.6 pretty quickly when you get past 15mm. But I sure <em>like</em> that it gets out to 20mm. I always seem to be using that lens at the far ends of its range.</p>

[knobstone]

<p>Matt and Hans, thanks for your responses. I was thinking of indoor, no-flash, low-light people type shooting; will I be able to get by for much of this with the 10-20? From what research of these type shots I have seen with this lens, it seems to be a capable, though maybe not ideal, choice. Thanks, Joe.</p>

[digidave2]

<p>If you don't mind paying $100.00 more than B&H, apparently they have one at 17th Street Photo.</p>

<p>http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=ATX116PRODXC</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I have one and use it in low light. It works great but AF hunts much more than on my AF-S 12-24 f/4 so I have started to set the focus manually instead - basically scale focus. I got the Tokina because f/4 is simply not enough in low light. DOF is usually plentiful at f/2.8.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>That's tricky, Joe. I got the 10-20 when I was also using a D200 (which I still have) and now usually mount that lens on a D300. The D300's extra stop or two of workable - in terms of noise - high ISO performance has made me much less fussy about the f/4-ish use of the 10-20 in available light when used at the wide end, since I can get a better shutter speed. If you get the exposure <em>right</em>, the D200's still nice and quiet, put kind of falls apart at/above ISO 800, as you probably have experienced. By the time you're out around 17mm or longer the 10-20 is going to be at f/5 or 5.6. That means that in a dim room, at ISO 640, you could be hand-holding shots at 1/20th or so. <br /><br />What's interesting is that at those ultrawide angles, those slow shutter speeds are amazingly workable if you have decent technique. And of course if you're using the lens wide, and can get f/4 or a little better, you're only maybe getting 1/30th or a little faster. Even an f/2.8 lens - everything else being the same - will only get you closer to 1/60th. But that does make a difference in some situations. If you have any ability to stabilize the camera - even on a wall, etc - the results of an ultra-wide shot at f/4, around 10 or 12mm, can look terrific. But if you have fidgety, moving subjects, the more light the better. <br /><br />I guess what I'm really getting at, here, is that poorly lit interiors really call for shooting at ISO 1600 or so anyway, AND using a fast lens. One of the beautiful things about your D200, of course, is that it can natively serve as a CLS commander for an off-camera SB-600/800/900 speedlight, and you can get some lovely, non-harsh-looking results at nice low ISOs and higher shutter speeds without many of these worries at all. Just sayin' !</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>A 11-16mm DX would have made a lot more sense for building interior photography, i.e. shooting the decoration, furnature, etc., but that is typically on a tripod at a smaller aperture.</p>

<p>For people photography with indoor existing light, f2.8 is certainly an advantage, but I wonder whether you indeed want a superwide such as 11-16mm for that purpose. People will be seriously distorted, especially on the edge of the frame. 11-16 is also a very limited zoom range for that purpose.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I am a night photographer, and often photo in low light. I sold my Sigma 10-20mm and bought the Tokina 11-16mm. I've been very, very happy. To find one, I started posting on different forums asking people if they'd seen one, and to email me with details. I got one after about a month. I love the speed. My problems is not only do I photo in low light, my subjects are moving.<br>

Kent in SD<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3485433707_f8110c4c6f.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="317" /></p>

[Palouse]

Glazer's in Seattle has them in stock for $599 <br /> (<a href="http://www.glazerscamera.com/store/tokina-11-16mm-f2-8-lens-nikon-mt.html" target="_blank">http://www.glazerscamera.com/store/t...-nikon-mt.html</a> )

<!-- / message --> <!-- sig -->

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>f2.8 is good for a number of reasons.</p>

<p>1. The occasional shot where you NEED f2.8 (rare imho)<br>

2. The fact that at f5.6, you are 2 stops down throughout the range, in the sweet spot. With the Sigma, you are wide open at f5.6 at the "long" nd.<br>

3. my favorite reason. In low light, even if you aren't shooting at f2.8, autofocus is FAST.</p>

<p>That said, I am tempted to sell mine and pre-order the new Sigma that is 3.5 throughout...</p>

[photo5]

<p>Glazers is a good operation, I've bought from them many times. I do like the range of the Sigma 10-20mm very much, overall I found it a very good wide angle walkaround zoom. I shot with it at 20mm quite a bit with good results, and 10mm looked great too. The f5.6 at 20mm was a bit of a disappointment though, but I lived with it. The new Sigma f3.5 is $649 and available for preorder at B&H Photo. I'll be interested to see if spending an additional $200 for the Nikon 10-24mm is worth it. Hope to read comments on this forum regarding both lenses.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm using the Tokina 12-24 f/4. My copy is not terribly sharp wide open (though very useable); at f/5.6 it is very very sharp though. Additional positive points: the Tokina is built like the proverbial tank. AF is speedy, and it's very easy to switch to MF. The lens balances really well (D80/D300, both w/o additional grip), not too heavy nor too lightweight. I have had no issue shooting sharp photos with 1/30~1/20th second shutter. Maybe not critical sharp, but certainly usable for larger prints.</p>

<p>For the type of use you envision, f/2.8 might be the only realy option, but personally, I've never felt that need for a fast lens at the wide end. It's just not the type of usage I see in a wide angle. So for low light, when I need a bit more coverage, I'm very happy with a 24 f/2.8 Ai which is extremely sharp wide open, and wide enough for many occassions.</p>

[Two23]

<p>A significant number of my shots are made at f2.8, and sometimes even that wasn't fast enough so I bought a Sigma 30mm f1.4. I need the speed. Most daytime shooters probably don't though.<br>

Kent in SD<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3618/3465759292_636486e3e7.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="329" /></p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Shun and the others make a good point about people-shooting. I've found the 20mm end of the 10-20 to be pleasantly workable for certain shots including humans. But much wider than that, and you have to be very, very conscious of where the people are in the frame, and keep them away from the margins. Of course, the exaggerated perspective can be a <strong><a href="../photo/7385489">fun creative element</a></strong>, if it suits the subject matter. That one's at 14mm.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>I've had such a hard time choosing between the 11-16 Tokina and the 12-24 that I now have both and really don't think there is a better solution for me. The 12-24 is a MUCH more useful walking-around lens, though, enough so that if I had to choose one, that would probably be it. The 11-16 does have that very useful extra mm of range on the wide end, though, and the f/2.8 aperture is a nice bonus although, as others have pointed out, it is rarely particularly useful for wide-angle photography.</p>

<p>In disagreement with some, though, I find these wide angles very useful for people photography. You have to get used to the idea of getting very close to people, and yes there will be some perspective distortion if you look for it, but the ability to show a person and a large chunk of their environment is tremendously useful and also a lot of fun.<br>

Here is an example of the 11-16 at 11mm, and I think this one is actually at f/2.8</p><div></div>

[glenn_c1]

<p>And here is the 12-24 at 12mm.</p>

<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i have the tokina 12-24, and i wouldn't exactly call it a 'people lens'--it's perfectly optimized for landscapes, but when i shoot people with it, except for large groups,i tend to use the 18-24 range much more than the 12-17 range. i would use it more indoors if it had 2.8, but you can't have everything. since an ultrawide wide draws in more light than other lenses, you can get away with low shutter speeds indoors for still subjects.</p>

<p>OTOH, the tamron 17-50/2.8 sees a lot of use in low-light situations, and 17mm is usually wide enough on DX to frame 2 or 3 people. and one thing about the tamron is its very sharp at 2.8, which is nice when you have a body which is challenged at ISO 800 and above like the d200.</p>

<p>kent is right that sometimes 2.8 isnt fast enough for nighttime availablelight/handheld stuff, but there arent too many sub-2.8 wide options out there, except the sigma 20/1.8, which i've never tried. i guess it kind of depends on how well-lit the interiors you plan on shooting are, as well as what your other lenses are. if you already have a fast wide-mid zoom which covers 17 or 18 and beyond, the 11-16 is more attractive. otherwise, the 12-24 is a more useful range overall, except for low-light interiors.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>not to say you can't take people pics with the 12-24, tho...</p><div></div>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>The 11-16 has good sharpness and is very usable at larger apertures too, making it more versatile than the slower lenses. However, beware that if you do happen to get any problems with it, Tokina's service is glacially slow.</p>

[kevin_price3]

<p>Hi Joe<br>

I have the Tokina 12-24 and it has been soft wide open at f4. I've had to stop it down several stops to get sharper photos, even then if I can go f8 or smaller the results are much better. I too was waiting for the 11-16 and was on the wait list at B&H for a while. I bought my 12-24 last year, but it has since had problems and refuses to speak with my 40D. I sent it back to Tokina and it was received on June 23rd this year. I have not heard from Tokina on whether it's a manufacturing defect or something else, and according to Oskar, I may not know for some time! I went on a road trip to Texas the day after my lens refused to work at all. I wound up buying a Tamron 10-24 at a camera store in Tuscon beacuse I really needed a wide angle for my trip. Turns out the Tamron lens has been sharper than my Tokina ever was. I really like the build of the Tokina though. I've read that the Tokina 11-16 is sharper, especially wide open, than the 12-24. It will be avaiable again, it's just a question if you want to wait for it. </p>

[dan_south]

<p>The Nikon 10-24mm DX gets my vote.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Sometimes it takes an ultrawide to get the people shot you want. Another Tokina 11-16mm photo.<br>

Kent in SD<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2077/3594222048_defcac162d.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="332" /></p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Glenn C., your sample images are exactly the type I would try to avoid. Perhaps it is fun to shoot something like that occasionally, but I wouldn't get a lens in order to produce such images on a regular basis. The kid sitting on hill side with a big head but tiny feet from the super wide perspective looks very strange to me.</p>

<p>However, your mileage/taste may vary.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Just buy it from a recognised ebay dealer in Hong Kong. 3 days delivery. Theres no need to wait for some local dealer to place an order for you.<br>

I've always done that with my gear (Nikon & Tokina). If I can't get it from Adorama or B&H, then its ebay for me. Never had a problem either with warranty (factory warranty covers global).</p>