# Need Help.  Tamron 10-24 or Tokina 11-16?



## epeddy1 (Feb 21, 2014)

First real advice needed post for me!

I'm gridlocked in my decision between the Tamron 10-24mm (f3.5-4.5) and the Tokina 11-16mm (f2.8) for Canon.  Priority of uses for this lens:

1.  Everyday vacation shots, landscapes, etc.  My favorite subject is landscapes.  Will get frequent use here.
2.  Nightscapes (Milky Way, nighttime city skylines, etc).  Might only take a handful of shots, but I've been dying for a gorgeous Milky Way shot.

Already have a Tamron 17-50mm f 2.8.

So here's what I've got so far for pros/cons:

Tamron:  Gives me a better range for being at the beach, etc on vacation and switching between landscapes and pics of my kids, etc without having to switch lenses.  Also about $100 cheaper (used available at my local shop).  Also gives me that extra 1mm at the wide end.  But it's variable aperture and slower, which will give me headaches for my Milky Way shots.

Tokina:  Still gives me the range I need (minus that 1mm), constant aperture has it's pros, also the fast lens will be nice for the Milky Way shot.  But it might not give me a good enough range for my every day vacation shots at the beach without switching to my 17-50.  It's $100 more.  And later on I might consider a fisheye, which would probably take its place for Milky Way shots (maybe not?).

What would you do?  Is there anything I'm not considering?  Thanks for the help!


----------



## Derrel (Feb 21, 2014)

Read the Ken Rockwell reviews for both lenses. NOT kidding.

Here's my thoughts: the 11-16mm lens is one of the narrowest zoom ranges ever made in a zoom lens. The Tamron is not all that good, optically. HOW GOOD a lens needs to be depends in part on how high the MP rating for your camera is...if you're shooting a 12MP or 14.2 MP older camera, no worries...if you've moved up to one of the 24 megapixel Nikons with no AA filter, lens quality has become a bigger deal than it used to be.

For star shots, I would worry more about coma than wide-angle.

What about the new 16-28mm Tokina? WOuld that be wide enough angle for you?


----------



## jsecordphoto (Feb 21, 2014)

16-28mm will not be wide enough for photographing the night sky on a crop sensor, even my rokinon 14mm isn't quite wide enough. I get star trailing at 14mm past 20 second exposures. I bought the 11-16 for shooting at night and I love it, the 10-24 will not work as well at night because it only opens up to 3.5

It would still be ok but 2.8 on the tokina will be better for shooting at night, not sure how much you're factoring that into your decision.


----------



## epeddy1 (Feb 21, 2014)

Thanks for the replies.  Yeah, I already have a 17-50mm f2.8 so the 16-28mm wouldn't give me much improvement.

I guess it comes down to a personal decision I have to make.  Which do I value more?  More range when using it for every day use, or better low light ability.  I guess with the night pics I can still take multiple frames and stack, but it still won't be the same as having a faster lens.  And I can always use my 17-50mm f2.8 at 17mm when I want to capture more light.

Financially, I'd be buying the Tamron used, so wouldn't lose as much if I wanted to sell or trade later if I find I made a bad decision.

Thanks again.  Just looking for some help hashing this out.


----------



## epeddy1 (Feb 21, 2014)

One more quicky; can't seem to find the answer (still a newb when it comes to the technical).  Do you know (or know where I can find) if the Tokina will AF on my Canon T3i?


----------



## tnp (Feb 21, 2014)

Glad you started this thread. I'm in the same boat. I have the Canon 3ti and want to do milky way and landscape photography. 

I went to a camera store to check out the Tokina 11-16, and the guy at the store tried to convince me that I don't need 2.8 to shoot the night sky and would be better off with the Canon 10-22 at 3.5. This didn't seem to make sense to me, but I'm brand new to this, so I thought I'd come here and see what others say before I make a decision. 

He said the Tokina is too soft around the edges, but I still think a 2.8 would do better than a 3.5 for milky way shots, or am I missing something?


----------



## grafxman (Feb 21, 2014)

epeddy1 said:


> One more quicky; can't seem to find the answer (still a newb when it comes to the technical).  Do you know (or know where I can find) if the Tokina will AF on my Canon T3i?



Yes, it works fine on any Canon APSC camera.


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 21, 2014)

If you look on DXOmark, the Tokina 16-28 has a better overall score than both the Tokina 11-16 and EF-S 10-22. I've heard pretty good things about the 10-22, but it's almost 1 stop worse in light transmission. 16 would be plenty wide, especially when you're focusing to infinity. Even of you had, let's say a 2.8 lens, you won't actually increase sharpness until about 3.5. Unless you're using an L series lens, you're going to lose sharpness wide open. I think Derrel is on to something with the 16-28. Even at its widest end, you still have about a 25mm field of view on a full frame.


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 21, 2014)

How much are you willing to spend?


----------



## Propsguy (Feb 21, 2014)

tnp said:


> ... the guy at the store tried to convince me that I don't need 2.8 to shoot the night sky and would be better off with the Canon 10-22 at 3.5. ....He said the Tokina is too soft around the edges...



Find a new camera store.... sounds like a desperate used car salesman trying to dump stock....

The Tokina is a gem of a lens.  It's sharp wide open and is excellent for astrophotography.


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 21, 2014)

Propsguy said:


> Find a new camera store.... sounds like a desperate used car salesman trying to dump stock....  The Tokina is a gem of a lens.  It's sharp wide open and is excellent for astrophotography.



This. 



The only real reason to go to a store nowadays is to try something out or to feel it in your hands. They're full of doodoo.  

I one time went to look at an EF 40mm. The guy tried to sell me a 5D Mk iii and a 24mm L. I felt like I had gone to prison after that experience. Most online places (amazon, keh, B&H, adorama, etc) give you a 14-30 day return policy.


----------



## grafxman (Feb 21, 2014)

tnp said:


> Glad you started this thread. I'm in the same boat. I have the Canon 3ti and want to do milky way and landscape photography.
> 
> I went to a camera store to check out the Tokina 11-16, and the guy at the store tried to convince me that I don't need 2.8 to shoot the night sky and would be better off with the Canon 10-22 at 3.5. This didn't seem to make sense to me, but I'm brand new to this, so I thought I'd come here and see what others say before I make a decision.
> 
> He said the Tokina is too soft around the edges, but I still think a 2.8 would do better than a 3.5 for milky way shots, or am I missing something?




I have several photos with the Tokina 11-16mm. Here's just one:

IMG_8203 -3 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

If you go through my Smallwood's Store set of photos you'll find more.

I haven't noticed any edge softness with the lens. What many folks don't consider when using a very wide angle lens is that when the lens is wide open and you are close to your target the edges of the photo will often be soft with just about any very wide angle lens. The reason is quite simple. The wide open lens has no depth of field so when the center of something is say 5 feet from you then the edges may be 5.5 feet or 6 feet away from you so naturally they will be out of focus and soft. If you stop the lens down to a smaller aperture that won't happen. You'll never notice it on things like landscapes or sky shots, just close photos with a wide open aperture.


----------



## jaomul (Feb 21, 2014)

As said above the 11-16 has a short zoom but is fast. Also worth looking at is the tokina 12-24 f4, slightly narrower at wide end and a stop slower but more flexible also


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 21, 2014)

jaomul said:


> As said above the 11-16 has a short zoom but is fast. Also worth looking at is the tokina 12-24 f4, slightly narrower at wide end and a stop slower but more flexible also



I owned this lens. One of my all time favorites. It's made only for crop-sensors, but it was awesome when I had it.


----------



## vipgraphx (Feb 21, 2014)

TOKINA all the way!


----------



## jsecordphoto (Feb 21, 2014)

The tokina 12-24 won't work well at night- trust me I sold the 12-24 to buy the 11-16. The 12-24 f4 was a great lens but f4 wasn't fast enough for shooting the night sky. And I will say it again, 16mm will not be wide enough on a crop sensor if you plan on shooting photos of the stars. My rokinon 14mm isn't really even wide enough on my crop sensor for shooting astrophotos, anything past 20 seconds and you'll see trailing in the stars. Even at 20 seconds I was barely happy with what I saw. I'd say go with the 11-16, especially if you have a lens that covers 17-50mm- who cares if the focal range on the 11-16 is so small? It's all personal preference on what you plan on using the lens for, but I vote for the tokina.

I will say when I upgrade to full frame I plan on scooping up the tokina 16-28 because 16mm on a full frame will be plenty wide for astro stuff


----------



## Propsguy (Feb 21, 2014)

reavesce said:


> jaomul said:
> 
> 
> > As said above the 11-16 has a short zoom but is fast. Also worth looking at is the tokina 12-24 f4, slightly narrower at wide end and a stop slower but more flexible also
> ...




Actually it will work on full frame at 16mm with no vignetting....


----------



## lennon33x (Feb 21, 2014)

Propsguy said:


> Actually it will work on full frame at 16mm with no vignetting....



Well I had to sell it in order to upgrade from a T3 to a 5D, so I traded up


----------

