# wide angle lens..Tokina or Sigma?



## excalibur

I want to get a wide angle lens, and it looks like the Sigma and Tokina are the two brands to choose from...Of course, I'm talking about the brands I can afford...Anyone can give me advise about which one would be the best for the money?...I'm just an amateur who loves to take pictures, mostly when traveling to places like Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc.. 
                                             Thank you


----------



## chammer

i dont have either or have experience with either, but i do see the tokina 12-24mm used and recommended quite often.

probably the best thing to do (unless someone else comes by that has experience with both types) is to use google search and type in whatever lens you're wanting to find out about and adding the word 'review' after it, ie: tokina 12-24mm review

should give you some pages which may help your choice.


----------



## NikonD80Shooter

Check out this link: Tokina 11-16 vs Sigma 10-20 image comparisons - FM Forums


----------



## Lightspeedfoto

i had the same debate.  I was looking at the canon 10-22, tokina 12-24, sigma and the tamron 10-22.  I actually ended up with the tamron.  The price was good, at 499 at my local shop and actually seeing them side by side and snapping off some pictures with each lens really helped.  I wanted the canon, but the 780 price tag was a bit much.  I went to the only 2 good shops in town and both recommended the tamron.  I have heard both good and bad about that lens, but the fact that it also comes with a lens hood and has a 6 year manufacturer's warranty, if i have any problems with it, i can send it back.  So far it's been really sharp and really fun to use!  Good luck!


----------



## Wolverinepwnes

i haven't had experience with Tokina, but I have had a few Sigmas before, and I have been very happy with their glass, its no Nikkor or high grade Canon, but its definately great for the price


----------



## Dao

The Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 seem to pretty good according to the lens review.

Even the focal length range is only from 11 to 16 when others usually go over 20mm, but I believe most of the time people will just use the shorter focal length of the lens anyway.

If I am going to get a ultra wide lens for APS-C camera, I may go with this or the older 10-20mm from Sigma. (Based on what I read from the net)


----------



## SlimPaul

I use the 10-20mm Sigma and I'm very happy with it. Ken Rockwell (I know, I know) also mentioned that Sigma delivers the best optical quality among DX wide angles, scoring even higher than Nikkor.


----------



## ironsidephoto

Read this.

Digital Wide Zooms

Ken Rockwell= THE source.


----------



## McNugget801

I test drove both the sigma 10-20 and tokina 11-16 f2.8 and the Tokina was by far the better choice. It ismore expensive but worth every cent.

I love my Tokina and when I see shots with the sigma wides it just make me that much happier I went with the Tokina.


----------



## skieur

I have both Tokina and Sigma lenses.  Image quality seems very similar but I find the Tokina lens gives the impression of being smoother in zooming and better built.  The Sigma however is very fast and sensitive in autofocus.

skieur


----------



## Tiberius47

Dao said:


> The Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 seem to pretty good according to the lens review.



I have one and I like it.



> Even the focal length range is only from 11 to 16 when others usually go over 20mm, but I believe most of the time people will just use the shorter focal length of the lens anyway.



Yeah, mine pretty much stays on 11mm....


----------



## Cojaro

You can also check Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ for some more reviews.

Here's the link for the Tokina 12-24mm: Tokina AT-X Pro SD 12-24mm F4 (IF) DX Lens Review: 3. Test results: Digital Photography Review


----------



## boomer

I'm in the same boat! I'm trying to pick between the 11-16 and the 12-24 Tokina. I like the focal range of the 12-24 better as it matches up with my 24-120 perfectly. But i like that the 11-16 is f/2.8...

The build quality on the Tokina's is very nice too!

Decisions!!!


----------



## Tiberius47

I'd go for the wider lens.  You'll be using it wide 99% of the time, so give yourself the advantage in that area.

Plus f2.8...


----------



## dcmountaineer

Is the Canon 10-22 worth the extra dough over the Sigma/Tokina?  

From everything I've read online, the canon wins hands down if price isn't an issue.


----------



## icassell

I have had the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for a couple of years and it is one of my favorite lenses.  It is well built and IQ is excellent.  I did a side to side with the canon 10-22 when I bought it, and didn't feel the Canon was worth the considerable extra $$. It spends most of its time at about 10mm as I have a 17-50 f/2.8 for the longer focal-length imaging.

Monument Valley ... Sigma 10-20mm


----------



## McNugget801

Took this last weekend with my Tokina 11-16 and Canon Xsi.

Here comes the snow - San Rafael Swell, Utah. on Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## dcmountaineer

McNugget801 said:


> Took this last weekend with my Tokina 11-16 and Canon Xsi.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/summit42/4114370521/



Very nice.

How often do you find yourself at 2.8?  I see some utility in be able to go wide open, but not sure if it's really needed.  thoughts?


----------



## Lyncca

I can't speak about the other lenses, but I have the Tokina 12-24. I really like it; especially for the price.


----------



## McNugget801

dcmountaineer said:


> Very nice.
> 
> How often do you find yourself at 2.8?  I see some utility in be able to go wide open, but not sure if it's really needed.  thoughts?



Thanks
I should say that I was dead set on getting the sigma 10-20, I have a friend who has one and I had been using fairly often. Then I got the chance to shoot the Tokina 11-16 and was blown away... it was no contest. The Sigmas was nice but the Tokina was clearly the obvious (and more expensive) choice for me.

I do quite a bit of shooting at night (light painting, long exposures, star trails ect.) and the F/2.8 is totally worth it.  

A few 2.8 night shots form last months trip to Arches.


----------



## dcmountaineer

McNugget801 said:


> dcmountaineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice.
> 
> How often do you find yourself at 2.8?  I see some utility in be able to go wide open, but not sure if it's really needed.  thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> I should say that I was dead set on getting the sigma 10-20, I have a friend who has one and I had been using fairly often. Then I got the chance to shoot the Tokina 11-16 and was blown away... it was no contest. The Sigmas was nice but the Tokina was clearly the obvious (and more expensive) choice for me.
> 
> I do quite a bit of shooting at night (light painting, long exposures, star trails ect.) and the F/2.8 is totally worth it.
> 
> A few 2.8 night shots form last months trip to Arches.
Click to expand...


Arches sure is great, isn't it?  Nice work.

Pardon my ignorance here, but what benefit does the wide open at f/2.8 provide when shooting long exposures on a tripod?  Does f/2.8 provide a diff effect from f/5.6?


----------



## McNugget801

dcmountaineer said:


> Pardon my ignorance here, but what benefit does the wide open at f/2.8 provide when shooting long exposures on a tripod?  Does f/2.8 provide a diff effect from f/5.6?



The more light you allow into the lens the more stars you're going to pick up.
to add insult to injury all those shots were taken at ISO1600


----------



## dcmountaineer

So tell me something:  why is the 11-16 so rare?  It's out of stock at almost every major retailer...


----------

