peter_cohen Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 <p>I'm looking to buy an ultra wide angle for specialized shots at receptions and parties. I'll use it maybe 10% of the time. I've twice rented the Tamron 10-24 (because that's what my rental store has) and have been disappointed in its quality, to say the least. The last time I rented it, it seemed completely unable to talk TTL to my D7000, resulting in my having to shoot manual flash with less than ideal results in a fast-changing environment. I'll be using it indoors, with flash almost 100% of the time. No landscape work.</p><p>I've read many threads comparing these three most-purchased lenses, but they are not very current and there may be recent versions of these lenses that have not been compared. I am looking at the Nikon 10-24, the Sigma 10-20, and the Tokina 11-16. My key criteria are image quality and compatibility with my D7000, especially in TTL with either an SB900 or Quantum Trio. I'll be shooting at 5.6 and above at ISO 800-1600 the majority of the time in very low light -- club-like levels. AF speed and accuracy is another key factor. Images through this lens would be 10x20 album spreads at their largest; most likely not wall prints.</p><p>I know that the Nikon is about $200 more than Sigma or Tokina, but I would pay that for IQ and the other factors listed above. I have the Nikon 17-55 that would pick up where this lens leaves off.</p><p>Thanks in advance for your opinions. The reviews on these lenses are numerous, but I'm looking for real-world use rather than science. At the rental store, I asked the person helping me which brand he would buy (he's a pro shooter) and he said "Tokina." I went upstairs to the retail store and asked the salesperson the same question, and the reply was "Tamron." Help!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 <p>Real world use: Sigma's 10-20 covers a very useful range, it talks just fine to my D300's metering system and iTTL with three different Nikon speedlights (SB-600, 800, and 900) all behave just as expected. My only grouse about the 10-20 HSM is that it can render a bit of complex mustache-style distortion in the margins when you shoot at 10mm. But:<br /><br />1) 10mm is <em>really</em> wide.<br /><br />2) You only really notice that stuff when you're fussing with interiors, architecture, etc. For the use you mention, you'd never notice it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evannorth Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 <p>i am looking for an UWA lens too. after a fair bit of research on the internet i have narrowed my choice down to the tokina 11-16, or possibly the tokina 12-24. both of these lenses are rated above the nearest nikon equivalents in both sharpness and chromatic abboration. distortion is less and easier to correct too. the sigma 10-20 is very popular but also renowned for softness and distortion. dont make the same mistake as i did and buy the tamron 11-18mm. its crap! tokina have recently released motorised versions of these lenses, so, if your using them for your d7000, get the earlier version as they may be discounting them.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_white4 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 <p>Tamron has relatively generous "spiffs", aka kickbacks, for salespeople. I'm not saying that's what's going on here, but as a former salesperson I'm a suspicious b*****d.<br> <br />I'm also an owner of the Tokina 11-16, and would highly recommend it. It's razor sharp, even wide open.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 <p>I've seen lots of good results and happy users of the Tokina 11-16. My main objection to it is the very limited range of focal lengths. It really does depend on how you'll be using the lens. For event coverage (as mentioned by the OP), the faster f/2.8 of the Tokina is attractive, but 11-16mm is a bit of a handicap. It's nice to have choices!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 <blockquote> <p>1) 10mm is <em>really</em> wide.</p> </blockquote> <p>No Matt. 10mm (even on DX) is <em>really, really</em> wide. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_brabender Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 <p>I went with the Tokina 11-16 ii. I originally had the original version but they announced the ii when I was still in my return period in January so I returned the original reluctantly. I went with the Tokina mainly for the 2.8 <br />It was supposed to be released in March<br />Well they finally put it out and I got it a couple of weeks ago<br />Don't get to shoot as much as I would like but so far I love it but then I couldn't find anything wrong with the original my backup camera is a D40 to my D7000 so the ii will AF on that which is a plus. The aspherical lens and coated glass also seemed to be a worthwhile upgrade <br />I am an amature so take my opinion and image quality with a grain of salt<br />keep in mind if you are shooting UWA polarizers have issues also if you plan on doing lens correction for slanted perspective using software shoot wider than you would want the finished picture because clipping will occur<br />One additional note the 11-16 ii does have the same $40 rebate as the original version. Saw that in outdoor photography and confirmed with Glenn at Tokina but for some reason B&H hasn't posted the rebate info</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_brabender Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 <p>Here is a pic with the 11-16 original D7000<br> I like to shoot at night</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 <p>The Tokina 11-16 is AWESOME (I love mine and wrote the review of it here on photo.net), but is VERY limited at the long end for your purpose (I think of it as a very small set of f2.8 primes). I think the Tokina (or Nikon) 12-24 would be FAR more useful in those instances, myself. GREAT range for that.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two23 Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 <p>I tried several ultrawides. I kept the Tokina. It love the f2.8 for low light shooting, and this lens has the least distortion of any I've tried. I think that's due to the fact it's a 1.5x zoom, not a 2x. Since my other lens is the 17-55mm f2.8, I don't really need the overlap of something like a 10-20mm. The Tokina is also extremely sharp.</p> <p>Kent in SD</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cohen Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>Thanks greatly for the responses, all. This is exactly what I was looking for. I'm now leaning heavily toward the Tokina 11-16. I'll use this lens at certain points throughout the events, and then go to my 17-55 for the duration. So the relatively limited range is not a problem, as it will most likely stay racked at 11 the entire time.</p> <p><strong>Dennis</strong>: the rebate is now posted on the B&H site, although I will first attempt to find a pristine v1 of this lens on the used market, since I don't care about the compatibility added with the v2.</p> <p>Thanks again.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_brabender Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>Peter I think that there is a difference between the 2 versions besides the motor.<br> From my understanding they coated the lens and there is aspherical glass on the ii.<br> Just checked the BH site the Tokina 11-16 ii is still not posted, it is for the 11-16 version 1.<br> Not to be outdone Adorama doesn't have the rebate posted either.<br> attached reply from glenn at Tokina<br> You can find the rebate information at the following link:<br /><br /><a id="yui_3_2_0_1_13454643182193990" href="http://thkphoto.com/news/rebates/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://thkphoto.com/news/rebates/</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Peter I think that there is a difference between the 2 versions besides the motor.<br />From my understanding they coated the lens and there is aspherical glass on the ii.</p> </blockquote> <p>The "I" version is multi-coated, as is probably every Tokina lens for at least 30 years, and it does indeed feature aspherical glass. The new one seems to have some kind of "improved coating" (although even that is unclear at this point, they may be referring to improved coatings that are already on the other lenses) and some additional AF circuitry, but so far there is no indication that there are any other changes, including the optical formula (which was excellent anyway). Tokina doesn't really tell us anything about this on their web site (in fact, when it comes to communicating with us, Tokina wins the prize as worst photo company out there, perhaps).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor_ho2 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>On the subject of rental: http://www.rentglass.com/<br> There are many others companies which can ship to you. Try them and then decide for yourself which lens you prefer before you purchase. I've rented from this company and been very satisfied. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cohen Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>Thanks for the added info, <strong>Peter</strong> and <strong>Dennis</strong>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marklcooper Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>I too have the Tokina 11 - 16 and the Nikon 17 - 55. The day after my Tokina arrived I shot the office Christmas party. You probably already know this, but be very careful with your distance to nearest (female) subjects when doing people photography. At 11mm I got a little too close to my subjects several times. I just about got lynched after posting the pics on the company server. It really exaggerates curves where some people don't want so much in the way of curves<g>. The 11 - 16 is now known around this office as my 'fat' lens.</p> <p>On the other hand everyone really liked the results when I used my 'fat' lens to shoot the office front entrance ( www.allenrefractories.com home page). The sign was about 2 feet to my left.</p> <p>I have a D300 so I purchased the old version, like new, on ebay.</p> <p>I think you'll enjoy it.</p> <p>Mark</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombest Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>I know the Tokina 12-24 F4.0 is not on your list but I posted a similar question a while back and got similar answers. Several responders noted that the 11-16 is almost a prime because of the limited zoom range. I was enamored by the thought of a razor sharp 2.8 UWA but chose the 12-24 for a better overall useful range... for me. I can attest to the build quality of the Tokina. Very solid and substantial lens and very, very sharp. If you need and want the extra mm on the wide side, buy the Tokina with confidence. But I will say, I was playing with my 12-24 this weekend at a local botanical garden and experimented with limiting the zoom range to 12-16 (the closest I can come to the 11-16) and I found it very limiting.<br> In low light the 2.8 will focus faster where the 4.0 might struggle but since you are using flash predominantly and the D7000 will throw a grid out in Auto focus 'A' it shouldn't be an issue. I also have a D7000, a camera notoriously hard on lenses, and the Tokina did not disappoint. I borrowed a friend's Nikon 12-24 F4.0 and didn't feel it was as sharp as this Tokina. Also, I took some advice from other sites about the relatively poor Tokina lens cap and bought a 77mm Nikon-brand cover for it when I ordered the lens.</p> <p>Tom</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cohen Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p><strong>Tom</strong>: Thanks for the input. I hear you on the limited range, but I want this lens for only a few specialized shots -- we do a lot of bar and bat mitzvahs and having this for shots of the kid going up in the chair and the hora would be about it. Same thing at weddings. Just a few instances where I would use it, then swap out for my 17-55 for the rest of the night. I will also use it on a monopod held overhead to get some "aeriel-cam" type shots. I did some of those this past weekend with the Tamron 10-24 that I rented, and loved the perspective. Too bad the lens didn't perform the way I would like. But from all the pro-Tokina comments here, I'm encouraged.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_brabender Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>Peter you might be surprised the usage that you get out of an UWA<br> kind of addicting makes you look at things from a different perspective<br> Luke come to the dark side</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cohen Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>Heh. I had a Nikon 12-24 previously. I know the dangers that await.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marklcooper Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>Peter - you're still alive to post questions so I assume you successfully navigated those treacherous waters<g></p> <p>Mark</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cohen Posted August 20, 2012 Author Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>Indeed. I sold the 12-24 to help fund the 17-55 for more range on the long end, and of course, I now want more on the wide end. What's that about hindsight being 20-20?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marklcooper Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>Peter,<br> "What's that about hindsight being 20-20?" ....Life!!! I hear you.</p> <p>Mark</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 <p>Hindsight being 20-20?</p> <p>No, clearly it's 10-20.</p> <p>My experience on an APS-C body with the older Sigma 10-20mm is like Matt's. I liked it so much that I bought the older Sigma 15-30mm for FX format, since I shoot both.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_cohen Posted August 21, 2012 Author Share Posted August 21, 2012 <p>"No, clearly it's 10-20." Now <em>that's</em> funny. Comedy Central could have a photographer's stand-up night. "A wedding photographer and a videographer are fighting for the same vantage point ... "</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now