Tokina 11-16mm vs Nikon 10-24mm

tesco

tesco

Suspended / Banned
Messages
141
Edit My Images
No
:thinking:

I am researching for a wide angle for my D300. I already have an Nikkor 18-200mm which I currently use for landscapes and general walk around but fancy a specialist ultra wide angle for landscapes. Looking at the £500 / £700 mark and the choice seems to be between the Tokina 11 – 16mm and the new Nikon 10-24mm. I am not bothered much about flexibility and use would be for landscapes and perhaps occassionaly photos of buildings in cities. Image quality is a key consideration and cost is not an issue e.g. both in same ballpark and I am not too a couple of hundred quid.

I am leaning towards to Tokina for image and slightly better build from the stuff I have read on the web. But I am consious the information on the Nikon is sketchy and I wonder if I am misrepresenting the Nikon because of the lack of information with it being new.

I would welcome any current views as some of the stuff on the net I feel might not fully do the Nikon justice as its so new. Or anything else anyone would like to add.

Thanks in advance.
 
I started a thread a week or so ago asking about which is the best UWA to buy for my D300 and the most popular answer was the Tokina 11-16mm and it seemed to be because of the sharp image quality and the solid build quality.

I know you said money isn't an issue but the Tokina is the cheaper lens and from the reviews I've read on it, it can't really be faulted so unless you specifically want a Nikon lens or you specifically was the 10-24mm range then I'd get the Tokina. As you can see from my signature I am on the hunt for one at the moment.
 
arclight said:
Read Ken Rockwell's comparison of these lenses.
I'd go the nikkor route.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-24mm.htm
Click to expand...
How come you pointed to the Ken Rockwell comparison yet recommended the Nikkor because Ken recommends the Tokina?

Ken Rockwell said:
The Tokina is faster, built better and costs less, but it won't autofocus on many cameras.​

If you have a heavy DX camera that can autofocus with the Tokina, like the D300, D200, D2X or D1X, I'd get the Tokina.​

In addition to autofocus with light cameras, the other gotcha with the Tokina is that it usually takes a while to get one after you order it. It is very popular because it is in many ways a better lens then either of the Nikons, and costs less
Click to expand...
 
Arclight - Ken Rockwell recomends the Tokina why would you go for the Nikon ? just wondering I am interested as its a tough one.

Rob - thanks I will have a look at your thread. I think this is a common dilema. Why are you advertising are you looking for second hand or struggling with retailers stock ?
 
tesco said:
Rob - thanks I will have a look at your thread. I think this is a common dilema. Why are you advertising are you looking for second hand or struggling with retailers stock ?
Click to expand...
I'm looking for a second hand one purely because they are better value. This lens was only released last year so second hand ones are only going to be 6 months old and the chances are that anyone selling after just 6 months will have hardly used it so they may as well be brand new. I've not looked in to how easy they are to get hold of new.
 
-Rob- said:
I started a thread a week or so ago asking about which is the best UWA to buy for my D300 and the most popular answer was the Tokina 11-16mm

Rob can't find your thread ?
Click to expand...
 
I have the Tokina and can favourably compare it against the Sigma and that the build and image quality is first rate. Haven't tried the Nikon version though, and I admit that the review by Ken Rockwell helped me decide - especially as it's rare for him to recommend a third party lens over a Nikon!
 
I went Nikon and couldn't be happier, haven't read the KR review, but my decision was mainly due to me being able to return the Nikon if my IR D200 created hotspots, which btw it doesn't :)

The build quality isn't bad on the Nikon btw it's not in the same league as 2.8 glass but its not crappy either
 
Unless you're blowing up to stupid size prints, I doubt you'll see the difference between the two. The Nikon gives you 1mm extra 'reach' but what's that in the general scheme of things. The Tokina has a faster max aperture and a smaller zoom range, which hints at more invested in optical quality than the Nikon...

I use a Nikon 12-24mm f/4, which is awesome. The Tokina version is just as good. Both are very good options too.....
 
specialman said:
The Tokina has a faster max aperture and a smaller zoom range, which hints at more invested in optical quality than the Nikon..
Click to expand...

I'll reserve judgment on that but 5mm isn't much of a zoom, might as well go for a prime
 
Don’t rule out the Tokina 12-24 either. I have had a go with the the 11-16 and found the range a bit limited so brought the Tokina 12-24. I only use mine for buildings at f8 so the min aperture doesn’t really matter to me. I have heard and read that the Nikon’s distortion is wavy and so difficult to correct while the Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 is easily correctable barrel distortion.

Most of the stuff here was shot with the Tokina, http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrew_hatfield/sets/72157622640105706/
 
specialman said:
True, 5mm ain't much but not sure if there's a prime that wide - imagine a 14mm prime.... ooohhh, I've made man mess ;)
Click to expand...

Nikon, Sigma, Canon and Tamron all make/have made 14mm rectilinear primes to cover the FX/35mm format.

Gary
 
cannockwolf said:
I'll reserve judgment on that but 5mm isn't much of a zoom, might as well go for a prime
Click to expand...

Exactly. And how often do you need f/2.8 on a super-wide?
 
-Rob- said:
How come you pointed to the Ken Rockwell comparison yet recommended the Nikkor because Ken recommends the Tokina?
Click to expand...

Because he bought the Nikkor:-

Recommendations top

Intro Specs Performance Compared Recommendations

This Nikon 10-24mm is the new standard in DX wide zooms. Buy one; I did.
 
I considered the same options and went for the Tokina 11-16.

5mm is not much of a range, but it is nearly 50% and can be useful.

You do not often need f2.8 for speed, but it gives you a brighter viewfinder which is useful for manual focussing.

I would also say the the build quality of the 11-16 is a few notches above the Nikon choices.
 
-Rob- said:
I'm assuming you haven't read this thread. The Tokina 11-16mm is a constant f2.8
Click to expand...

I mean that there isn't a prime lens that wide. Hence "might as well go for a prime" doesn't make sense.
 
Sorry I thought you meant there wasn't a UWA with an aperture as wide as 2.8.

You can get prime fisheyes pretty wide but they obviously give a lot distortion that's hard/impossible to correct. 11-16mm may not be much of a range but I think it's better than a prime. In the kind of situations where you'd be using the lens you don't always get the option to move backwards and forwards to frame your shot right.
 
I have this lens now, all be it in canon fitment (don't hurt me). 5mm of zoom may not sound much, but it is not pointless or unnoticeable.
Remember being right at the wide extreme is different to being at the telephoto extreme where 5mm may well make b****r all odds. :)
 
These short zooms are only good for crop format and 10mm is 15-16mm equivalent on full frame. There are wider primes than that for full frame.
 
arclight said:
Because he bought the Nikkor:-

Recommendations top

Intro Specs Performance Compared Recommendations

This Nikon 10-24mm is the new standard in DX wide zooms. Buy one; I did.
Click to expand...

Hi Arclight not disputing what you are saying but why the Nikon why is it better than the Tokina ? I am a Nikon man just need to understand why.
 
tesco said:
Hi Arclight not disputing what you are saying but why the Nikon why is it better than the Tokina ? I am a Nikon man just need to understand why.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Nikon user, but my Canon 10-22 is similar. It's the better choice IMHO because it has the widest range, is sharpest, very well made, and only gives best on lowest f/number which is really not important to me in a super-wide. And it is also expensive.

Bearing this in mind, third party manufacturers have to find an alternative USP. The usual trick is to make something of similar spec, but cheaper. Tokina have found a different angle here (:D) and produced a lens with a reduced focal length range, but a lower f/number. And by all accounts, quality is very good - if that's a spec that appeals.

If Tamron, Sigma, Tokina etc simply made clones of the camera manufacturer's lenses, they would be no better and just as expensive - nobody would buy them in preference.
 
tesco said:
Hi Arclight not disputing what you are saying but why the Nikon why is it better than the Tokina ? I am a Nikon man just need to understand why.
Click to expand...

Just a matter of opinion, Tesco.
On paper there is precious little to separate the results of the lenses, but having used Nikon (except for a brief interlude) since about 1980 I have always found Nikkors to have a quality that is not not necessarily reflected in test results - the images they produce are "contrasty". Therefore, faced with choosing between lenses with very similar test results I would always go for the Nikkor.
I also am ignoring the Tokina having faster focussing because I don't see speed of focussing to be an issue for super WA lenses since they are not often used for subjects where a fast capture is required.
 
Reading the opinions its all a bit inconclusive. Maybe they are so neck and neck you take other factors such as outlined by Arclight such as the contrast tone from Nikkors.

For me the deciding factor is image quality but I have been unable to fathom which is better. Probably they are exactly as good as each other.

Its probably tiny things that will make the difference at the end of the day.
 
tesco said:
Reading the opinions its all a bit inconclusive. Maybe they are so neck and neck you take other factors such as outlined by Arclight such as the contrast tone from Nikkors.

For me the deciding factor is image quality but I have been unable to fathom which is better. Probably they are exactly as good as each other.

Its probably tiny things that will make the difference at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a pity you could not get to try out both lenses. There is also the possibility that lens reviews are not strictly unbiased. Reviewers may have a hidden agenda.
I am sure lots of folk have encountered totally opposing reviews in magazines for the same piece of kit.
 
One thing in favour of the Tokina I guess might be the 2.8 if you were taking indoor shots saw churches or cathedrals or night / low light shots over cities.

?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top