Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24 ???

[GregoryH]

I have a Nikon D300 and looking for a wide angle lens for an upcoming European holiday. I am looking to do wider angle landscapes and imagine the new lens will be useful in some of the cathedrals that we will be visiting. I also hope to get a bit more creative with landscapes when the trip is over. As the equipment below indicates, I have the 18-135 kit lens already.

I am trying to decide between the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 and the Nikon 10-24 F3.5.

I have heard and read about of back focus issues with the Tokina but it is only two thirds the price of the Nikon. ($829 v $1225). Is this fault as common as some of the reviews indicate or is it just a few problem lens creating the feedback and the good lens not having comments made?

Can anyone give some feedback on their experience with either lens?

Any suggestions or comments would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Greg

[Colourised]

i think you couldnt go wrong with the Tokina 11-16 2.8. the 2.8 would definitely be of help in low cathedral lightings since usually flashguns arent allowed.

about the focusing issue, ive heard of people having this problem but i think its pretty rare for tokina's. but i stand corrected.

have fun in europe!

[lovecolt]

Had the tokina on my 30D before. Don't have any focus issue and never know the lens had focus issue..

[arthurking83]

I think the Nikon is so way over priced, that it deserves to fail as a product in Nikon's lens line up.

Seriously there is only so much that I'd pay for the Nikon brand name, and at twice the price of a clearly superior Sigma competitor.. Nikon should be ashamed of itself!

The two reports(tests) I've seen so far, one being at photozone, and a few sample images off DPR.. show this lens is horrid at the far edges @ 10mm and while the Sigma isn't perfect, it is better but more importantly can be had for much less, and nearry half as much as Nikon want for theirs.

The only issue I have with the Tokina is the non AF-S type focusing system. While it's not really a big issue, and will of course focus on your two cameras, the workflow in using these non AF-S type lenses when you want instant manual focus override with a simple twist, rather than the AF-D type focusing method of switching switches adjusting focus, and then remembering to switch the switch back to AF again..

if you don't need the 17-24mm focal lengths, then the Tokina would have to be the recommendation going by it's performance figures alone.

f/2.8 can be handy to have, even on an UWA lens such as these types, despite what many people would argue.

I have zero hands on experience with either of these lenses, but just on the figures posted on photozone, you'd be best advised to have these lenses on your short list:

Tokina 11-16: for pure IQ across the frame, and the option of a faster aperture
Sigma 10-20 for great IQ across 95% of the frame, and cheaper by a large margin, and is HSM(same as AF-S)
Tamron 10-24: cheaper, but performance is yet to be properly determined.
Nikon 10-24: great IQ in many respects, but corner IQ is woefu @ 10mm(see photozones figures for an idea of how bad) and hence the worst value for money of the 4 lenses.

One thing I've noticed over the course of the last few years is that, while many people deride the type of tests performed by photozone, my lenses perform almost exactly as per the test results indicated on that site, in my 'real world images'.
I don't take test shots of charts and stuff.
So, while I have no idea on how my lenses rate by comparison to the lenses tested on PZ in absolute terms(ie. the numbers he posts), in overall performance terms(how the lens performs at certain apertures, is it sharp, aberrations.. etc).... PZ is basically as accurate a resource as you can find anywhere.

the $ savings can go towards other accessories that would help in getting the shot.

[old dog]

just my .02`s worth. I bought the 12-24 nikkor on ebay for $800 s/hand in mint condition. I am very happy with it. There are a couple on ebay ATM and I`d do it again. I don`t know much about the 11-16 but it`s a small range to use.

[N*A*M]

i had the 11-16 and found it focused beautifully on my d80
haven't heard of focussing issues but you can micro AF adjust on the d300
i sold it to fund the d300

if i wanted another UWA, i'd probably go the siggy 10-20

[GregoryH]

Thanks everyone for your feedback, particularly Arthur for your detailed comments. I hadn't looked at the Sigma, it may be the best of both worlds for me.

[Tannin]

It is always a mistake to post before reading the whole thread, so I'm going to do it anyway.

Let's score three lenses according to how well they do various things. We will score one point for a lens every time it qualifies on any of these criteria.

• fast f/2.8 aperture: Tokina 11-16
• quality optics: Tokina 11-16, Nikon 10-24, Tamron 10-24. (The Tokina and the Tamron have both had excellent reviews, I haven't seen anything written about the Nikon yet, but if it's not just as good as the other two, or even better, I'll eat one raw.
• really wide short end: Nikon 10-24, Tamron 10-24. I'll give the Tokina 11-16 a half a point here - yes, it's 11mm, but there is actually quite a large difference between 10mm and 11mm.
• long enough long end to cover the gap to your general-purpose wide-normal zoom. Nikon 10-24, Tamron 10-24, half point to the Tokina 11-16. A bonus half-point each of the 10-24mm units because the generous 24mm long end they feature is enough to (a) give you an ample overlap with your 18-135, which saves a lot of tedious lens swapping, and (b) gives you the opportunity to upgrade the 18-135 kit lens to a professional standard 24-70/2.8 or a 24-100ish/4 one day, and still not have an ugly gap to deal with.
• Attractive price: Tamron 10-24. Half point to the Tokina 11-16.

The scores:

• 3.5 points - Tokina 11-16
• 3.5 points - Nikon 10-24
• 4.5 points - Tamron 10-24

That's probably being a bit over-generous to the Tokina: the benefit of a fast aperture in an ultra-wide angle lens is very limited. Depth of field is massive at 10 or 12mm no matter what aperture you use so we are not going to gain much in terms of blurring backgrounds, and you can hand-hold an ultra-wide lens down to insanely low speeds simply because the focal length is so short. So all the f/2.8 gets you is a lot of cost and weight and a much, much shorter zoom range. Nevertheless, I was generous to the Tokina and gave it a full point over the other two on account of the fast aperture.

[Colourised]

forgot to add that i myself am using the sigma 10-20mm. i was basically in the same position as well when i made the jump for the sigma. i was actually going to opt for the nikkor 12-24. but then after several reviews and 1st hand opinions later, the 2mm on UWAs is a pretty huge gap! for me especially the extra reach is definitely worth it!

plus my copy was tack sharp, no focusing issues (for now) and cheap! well.. compared to other UWAs

gdluck in choosing!

[landscaper]

Hi GregoryH.

I'm very new to this site. However your thread is very interesting (I've go the same problem). I have no numbers or previous experience with either of these lenses but I have jumped between a lot of review sites. I agree with arthurking83 except for the first two places.

1. Sigma (then)
2. Tokina
3. Tamron
4. Nikon (because of the price)

Sigma only for the extra mm. At the end of the day you can worry over it to the point you cannot make a decision and miss out on taking great photos. Every lens will have a problem, it just depends if that problem will significantly interfere with what you will primarily capture.

Let us know what you eventually go for and how your trip went. Good luck.

[I @ M]

Let us know what you eventually go for and how your trip went. Good luck.

Going by Greg's current signature his list of lenses now includes the Nikon.

[GregoryH]

Hi Folks,
Yes eventually went for the Nikon and I'm very happy with the results. The Sigma was good, but after trying both lenses in the shop the Nikon appeared sharper and the extra range to 24mm finally swayed the deal. Deb and I have just returned from a couple of weeks in Germany and I got some great shots with the lens. I didn't miss the F2.8, but there were many times I was shooting at 24mm. All in all, I'm happy with the decision. I'll try and post a couple of shots on the weekend.
Cheers,
Greg

[dazzleng]

Hey good to hear the trip was good and the Nikon lens worked well for the type of shots. Hope you post some of those pics up soon!

[GlennSan]

Looking forward to some samples Greg. I'm wide-challenged at the moment and will be starting to look at my options for purchase soon.

[bradhk]

I shoot Nikon D200 and recently purchased the Tokina 12-24 f4 (version 1 screwdriver focus model).

I did look at the 11-16 and I found that the limited zoom range made the lens almost like a prime rather than a zoom. For me, this limited the usefulness of the lens. 12-24 or 10-24 on a DX body is much more flexible option from the wider zoom range. The Tokina 12-24 was significantly cheaper than the 2 UWA Nikons and optically comparable particularly on D300 where CA is not an issue. The 12-24 was also cheaper than the 11-16. Granted you lose 1 or 2 mm at the wide end so your mileage my vary.

Remember, Having a 2.8 option on an UWA lens is not as critical as it is on longer lenses, you can make sharp images at relatively slow shutter speeds compared to longer lenses

here are a couple of images I have made with the 12-24 lens. The 2nd shot was at ISO1000 at f4 and 1/25sec