# Tokina 11-16 vs Nikon 10-24



## cleary71

I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on either the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or the Nikon 10-24 f3.5-5.6.  I was all ready pull the trigger on the Nikon lens, then I read where Ken Rockwell likes the Tokina better.  I was just wondering if anyone on the forum could offer any other opinions.  Thanks!


----------



## Destin

I've seen side by side comparisons, and the tokina is just as sharp if not sharper. 

That, combined with the constant 2.8 aperture make the tokina a no brainer choice to me. It's the next lens I plan to buy actually!


----------



## analog.universe

I'll start by saying that I don't know anything about Nikon lenses...

But I own the Tokina, and the main reason I bought it was it's sharpness.  When I was researching (3 months ago?), the only ultra wide angle I saw that was sharper was the Sigma 8-16mm, but it doesn't accept filters, and has more pronounced distortion than the Tokina.  All of the crop sensor wide angle lenses seem to make some compromises, so it really comes down to which characteristics are most important to you.  The Tokina definitely still distorts a little, and exhibits some CA near the edges, but to my eyes it looked better than the Sigma and much better than the Canon.  If you don't care about filters, and sharpness is more important than distortion, the Sigma 8-16 is a really impressive lens for the money.  The Tokina struck me as being a better all around performer, but it still is not perfect.  The 2.8 is really nice, and has come in handy sometimes.... but wouldn't be a deciding factor for me, depends on how you're going to be using it though.  Most of the time for me, a lens this wide is a tripod situation, so the 2.8 isn't that big of a deal.

A really good thing to do when comparing lenses like this is to search for photos on flickr that were taken with them.  There are often groups dedicated to each lens where you can just browse hundreds of photos.  When you're sick of looking at charts and analysis, it's nice to just get a feel for what each lens looks like in real situations.


_edit: thought I should add... the Tokina is actually not all that sharp at 2.8.  It's great a couple stops down, but, don't buy it expecting to shoot at 2.8 all time...  it's nice to have when you need it_, _but I usually shoot it at 4.5 or tighter anyway._


----------



## kundalini

I would certainly use more resources than one review by KR to make a decision on lens purchaces.  Personally I would not want a variable aperture zoom lens, even if it is a Nikkor product.


----------



## flea77

kundalini said:


> I would certainly use more resources than one review by KR to make a decision on lens purchaces.  Personally I would not want a variable aperture zoom lens, even if it is a Nikkor product.



I am just curious, if you had two lenses, lens A and lens B, and in all measurable ways lens A was superior (less CA, less distortion, sharper, etc) but lens A was variable aperture and lens B was fixed, are you saying you would take lens B? Whats your reasoning for this?

Allan


----------



## kundalini

I'm willing to pay the price of admission for the show.

Nikkor zooms in my quiver.......
12-24mm f/4 (DX)
14-24mm f/2.8
24-70mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2.8

Otherwise, I stay at home.


----------



## flea77

kundalini said:


> I'm willing to pay the price of admission for the show.
> 
> Nikkor zooms in my quiver.......
> 12-24mm f/4 (DX)
> 14-24mm f/2.8
> 24-70mm f/2.8
> 70-200mm f/2.8
> 
> Otherwise, I stay at home.



So the reason you don't like variable apertures is so you can spend more money? Interesting. I can honestly say that idea never occured to me.

Allan


----------



## analog.universe

In most cases I would agree that a variable aperture zoom is not worth it, no matter the savings.  I feel that UWAs are something of a different story, but it all comes down to intended use.  Like I said earlier, if I'm shooting this wide, it's usually on a tripod, or for a random one-off shot.  It's different if you're walking around, getting different types of shots at different focal lengths... in that situation constant aperture is indispensable.  UWAs have a unique place though, and it wouldn't bother me to have to deal with variable on one.


----------



## kundalini

flea77 said:


> So the reason you don't like variable apertures is so you can spend more money? Interesting. I can honestly say that idea never occured to me.


I'm not one to just throw money at a problem.  I do my research.  I'd just rather bite the apple once.


----------



## flea77

kundalini said:


> I'm not one to just throw money at a problem.  I do my research.  I'd just rather bite the apple once.



I do find it interesting that you dance about and never answer the question, which was, what is your reasoning for not wanting a variable aperture lens with all other things being equal? Is it just because you want expensive lenses regardless of quality? Since I am primarily a prime shooter, I am genuinely curious.

Allan


----------



## kundalini

flea77 said:


> I do find it interesting that you dance about and never answer the question, which was, what is your reasoning for not wanting a variable aperture lens with all other things being equal?


Apologies if it appeared that I was dancing around the question, I just thought it was blatantly clear.  The first two lenses I had with my first Nikon body was the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and 55-200mm f/4-5.6.  Both of these lenses are quite capable of taking tack sharp images, given enough light.  And that is the crux of the biscuit, given enough light.  Being limited to an aperture of f/5.6 at the far end of the zoom range was a disappointment for me with the things I wanted to shoot and the way I wanted to shoot them.  Although the front end of the aperture range isn't nearly as limiting, having that extra 2/3 to 1 full stop is an added bonus.  Additionally, as with all lenses that I've read about, the sweet spot is usually a stop or two from wide open.  That would put the 18-55mm at ~f/5-7.1 as opposed to f/4-5.6 for a lens with a constant aperture of f/2.8.  Lastly, knowing that my aperture will not shift on me during the zoom process to frame an image gives me one less thing to be concerned with, which if in a fast moving situation, gives me confidence that my keeper rate will be a better return.  




flea77 said:


> Is it just because you want expensive lenses regardless of quality? Since I am primarily a prime shooter, I am genuinely curious.


You keep making mention of my expenditures.  As I eluded to earlier, it's not about having expensive gear, it's about the results that I want to try and achieve.  Unfortunately, that desire comes at a cost.  

With your prime lenses, do you have any with an aperture of f/1.4?  If so, why did you choose them over an f/1.8?  Would it have anything to do with build quality, image quality, additional light gathering, more options/ability?  Or was it because it was more expensive?


This is what works for me, it is my considered opinion and may not be appropriate for the next person.


----------



## table1349

Real reviews from real users:

FM Reviews - Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX -Nikkor

FM Reviews - Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX

I have the Tokina in Canon mount and love it.


----------



## flea77

kundalini said:


> Apologies if it appeared that I was dancing around the question, I just thought it was blatantly clear.  The first two lenses I had with my first Nikon body was the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and 55-200mm f/4-5.6.  Both of these lenses are quite capable of taking tack sharp images, given enough light.  And that is the crux of the biscuit, given enough light.  Being limited to an aperture of f/5.6 at the far end of the zoom range was a disappointment for me with the things I wanted to shoot and the way I wanted to shoot them.  Although the front end of the aperture range isn't nearly as limiting, having that extra 2/3 to 1 full stop is an added bonus.  Additionally, as with all lenses that I've read about, the sweet spot is usually a stop or two from wide open.  That would put the 18-55mm at ~f/5-7.1 as opposed to f/4-5.6 for a lens with a constant aperture of f/2.8.  Lastly, knowing that my aperture will not shift on me during the zoom process to frame an image gives me one less thing to be concerned with, which if in a fast moving situation, gives me confidence that my keeper rate will be a better return.



This makes perfect sense, and I completely agree with your assessment. However, several of us mentioned that with UW lenses many people use those exclusively on tripods where you are shooting at f8-f16 for more depth of field (myself in particular for interiors), however you seemed to indicate that even in this situation you would not want a variable aperture and that left me wondering why. I mean, if you know the lens will be at least at f8, and you know it will be on a tripod, why in the world would you care if the maximum aperture was f2.8 or f4? In addition, why would you care if the max aperture moved from say f3.5 to f4.5 when you have already decided to use a minimum of f8?

Don't get me wrong, when shooting football I am at 300mm and f2.8 so I fully understand the need for fast glass, and I have a bunch of it. But in the situation we described where you replied saying you would not want a variable aperture, I will not be using a 300mm lens trying to get 1/1000sec under horrible lighting conditions. At the same time, I have no intention of shooting night sports with an 11mm lens, at ANY aperture!




kundalini said:


> You keep making mention of my expenditures.  As I eluded to earlier, it's not about having expensive gear, it's about the results that I want to try and achieve.  Unfortunately, that desire comes at a cost.
> 
> With your prime lenses, do you have any with an aperture of f/1.4?  If so, why did you choose them over an f/1.8?  Would it have anything to do with build quality, image quality, additional light gathering, more options/ability?  Or was it because it was more expensive?



Yes I do, however I also believe in using the right tool for the job. I use fast glass where I need fast glass, but in situations where I know I am on a tripod, have all the exposure time in the world, and shoot for large areas in focus, I do not spend more money just because I can, I buy the right tool for the job. It seems insane to me to purchase a lens with a max aperture of 2.8 that will never be opened past f8.

Allan


----------



## mrpink

flea77 said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would certainly use more resources than one review by KR to make a decision on lens purchaces.  Personally I would not want a variable aperture zoom lens, even if it is a Nikkor product.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just curious, if you had two lenses, lens A and lens B, and in all measurable ways lens A was superior (less CA, less distortion, sharper, etc) but lens A was variable aperture and lens B was fixed, are you saying you would take lens B? Whats your reasoning for this?
> 
> Allan
Click to expand...


Please use a real world example of this scenario.  I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing here Allan.


OP.  I had the Nikkor 10-24, the image quality was decent, but I was let down by the build quality for the price paid.  It felt to be on the same level as the Nikon kit glass as far as feel.






p!nK


----------



## kundalini

flea77 said:


> It seems insane to me to purchase a lens with a max aperture of 2.8 that will never be opened past f8.


Just call me crazy then.  It's ceratinly not the first time and I highly doubt it to be the last.

I wanted an UWA, got the 12-24mm and loved it, still do.  However, when I went with the D700, I couldn't get the full potential of the lens.  I got a 20mm prime for wide shots and loved it, still do.  But I wanted wider.  After a lot of looking around and certainly a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, I bite the bullet for the 14-24mm and loved it, still do.  In case you've been under a rock lately, the reviews of that lens is outstanding.  I'll just quote the verdict from photozone.de, you can read the full review on your own.


> The Nikkor AF-S 14-24 is an impressive ultra wide angle zooms lens that outperforms most of the prime lenses in its range resolution wise, with its fast aperture allows for low light shooting (or alternatively some object separation with limited depth of field) and is built solid enough to withstand the hard treatment of a working professional (allthough this, combined with the huge amount of class, makes it the heaviest ultra wide around and also one of the most expensive).
> However it's not without flaws. Where there's light, there's shadow, and if you shoot it with this lens there's easily a flare spot, too. There's some vignetting, especially wide open, but it's in line with the competition and easy to correct. Distortions are very high at the wide end, but at least they are of uniform shape and thus can be corrected in software, too.
> Some will also dislike that there's no filter thread to mount a polarizer or a filter holder. However, in summary it's still an excellent lens and for those who can live or work around its issues currently probably the most attractive ultra wide zooms lens available.



This was one of the first photos I took with it, just a lame shot, but I wanted to see what it would do at 14mm and f/2.8.







Taking a 100% crop to check its ability to separate the subject from the background and also render the background out of focus with a smooth bokeh..... well, kinda blew me away.







So I guess at the end of the day, this was the right tool for me.






mrpink said:


> Please use a real world example of this scenario. I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing here Allan.


I tend to agree.  I'm not sure why he is concerned with my finances or choices.

It's been fun.  Bye.


----------



## flea77

mrpink said:


> Please use a real world example of this scenario.  I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing here Allan.



Had you read a little more instead of making this post you would have seen that I was trying to isolate varible aperture as a singular feature that kundalini seemed to not want, and took forever to say why. I was not arguing the point, mearly wanting to know why. A realistic scenario is not required to understand the reasoning behind not wanting a singular feature. For example, one could ask me why I like D series lenses without a real world scenario, to which I would reply they work on all my bodies, including my old film bodies, whereas the newer G series do not. See? Easy logical answer to a question without a real world scenario, and no arguing.

Allan


----------



## flea77

kundalini said:


> Just call me crazy then.  It's ceratinly not the first time and I highly doubt it to be the last.
> 
> I wanted an UWA, got the 12-24mm and loved it, still do.  However, when I went with the D700, I couldn't get the full potential of the lens.  I got a 20mm prime for wide shots and loved it, still do.  But I wanted wider.  After a lot of looking around and certainly a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, I bite the bullet for the 14-24mm and loved it, still do.  In case you've been under a rock lately, the reviews of that lens is outstanding.  I'll just quote the verdict from photozone.de, you can read the full review on your own.
> So I guess at the end of the day, this was the right tool for me.



That is a perfectly logical answer, thank you. Now why you could not just say that in the first place instead of dancing around with "answers" like 



			
				kundalini said:
			
		

> I'm willing to pay the price of admission for the show.



which tells no one anything is beyond me. I thought I had a very simple question, which was why you avoided variable apertures regardless of other factors. 



kundalini said:


> mrpink said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please use a real world example of this scenario. I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing here Allan.
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree.  I'm not sure why he is concerned with my finances or choices.
> 
> It's been fun.  Bye.
Click to expand...


I am not concerned with your finances, I wanted a simple answer to a simple question. I am concerned with your choices because this is a photography forum, and that is what we do, share experiences, choices, reasons, etc to help us all become better. You can not learn if you do not ask questions, and you can not share your knowledge if you answer with cryptic messages that mean nothing to anyone but you.

Allan


----------



## Doc_CSB

Can't comment on the Nikkor but I love the Tokina.


----------

