# sigma 10-20 vs tokina 11-16



## 2fastlx

I'm up in the air about these two lenses.  There is also $200 price difference.  I like the f2.8 of the tokina but the extra mm on the wide end of the sigma looks good too.  The sigma is cheaper but the tokina is faster.  Anyone have any experience with the two of them?  Suggestions?


----------



## fjrabon

I've owned both.  The tokina is a bit sharper, and has a little less distortion.  But I do like 10mm and 17-20mm on the Sigma.  Also, I thought the color on the Sigma was a bit better.  

Ultimately, I went with the Tokina because I started doing some concert photography and wanted a wide angle that could get a few shots.  For concert photography you need every stop of light you can get.  If I didn't need the light, I probably would have stuck with the Sigma.  I liked the Sigma, especially for landscape, where you can stick it on a tripod and stop down to f/11.  The Tokina is a bit better quality lens, but not by a whole lot if you don't need the extra 1-2 stops of light.  If you need the extra 1-2 stops of light, there simply isn't a choice though.  At 16mm, shooting a concert, the difference between f/2.8 and f/5.6 is the difference between a usable ISO 1600 and a totally noise destroyed ISO 6400.


----------



## sean7488

I had the sigma but sold it for the tokina. The extra 1 mm doesn't particularly matter that much and the tokina is a very sharp lens for DX.


----------



## Dao

I choose the Sigma instead.  I have a 14mm f/2.8 prime (a FX lens but I use a cropped sensor body) and need a wider lens.  When I use the 14mm lens, I seldom shoot at f/2.8 at all.  So really no need to pay extra for the Tokina just because of the wider aperture.

Based on the reviews I find on the net (when I bought my Sigma, Tokina do not have the version II yet), I do not believe the Tokina will make a big difference at all in my photos.  When I look at the MTF charts, the Tokina is slightly better at the  corners at around 10-11mm area when shoot at f/5.6 to f/8.  But I did not see a lot of difference in the sample photos I saw.  So I pick up the Sigma instead.  

At the end, if I have money, I will pick the Canon (a little sharper and better lens flares handling).  If I want to save some money, I will pick the Sigma.  But that is just my personal choice based on my need.


This is one sample from my Sigma


----------



## Awiserbud

I have the Tokina, I bought mine based on reviews and forums discussions that i researched before i got it, the main reason i went for the Tokina over the sigma was many of the users had suggested it was a bit sharper than the Sigma, not having the pleasure of being able to directly compare it with the Sima i couldn't say, but what i can say i am extremely impressed with how sharp it is for an ultra wide angle, Also i use it a lot for parties and functions, the extremely wide depth of field is fantastic for this so low light level shooting where auto focus can sometimes be a problem is not an issue with this lens.
I'm using it on a D7000, and yes there are clear signs of vignetting at the wider angle, but nothing that can't be corrected in post. obviously this lens is no good for full frame.
I have an example shot here at 11mm (f3.5, 1/5000)




London Eye by steve watson photos, on Flickr

Would be good if someone could post a similar sort of shot from the Sigma.


----------



## fjrabon

The tokina is sharper, but not to where you will really be able to tell from a photo posted on here. It's not like a night and day difference.


----------



## orb9220

Yeah it really comes down to needing constant f2.8. If you are doing a lot of landscape then on a tripod and shooting at f11-f22 anyways. 

So comes down to handheld need in lower light situations or not. 
I find most of my photography doesn't include night life,clubs and concert sort of things and use a tripod for night scenes.

Tho like these handheld shots being ultra-wide helps with using slower shutter speeds.



Down to the Water - PDX by Orbmiser, on Flickr




Rainy Day - PDX by Orbmiser, on Flickr

I find the Sigma 10-20 sufficient tho that is mainly due to the price difference ($300 used).
And have more dust bunnies than greenbacks in my wallet. 
If monies not that much of a concern than would to the Tokina in a heartbeat. 
.


----------



## greybeard

from 10-11mm and 17-20mm the Sigma is much better.   Other than that the Tokina is sharper and has less distortion.


----------



## invisible

fjrabon said:


> I've owned both.  The tokina is a bit sharper, and has a little less distortion.  But I do like 10mm and 17-20mm on the Sigma.  Also, I thought the color on the Sigma was a bit better.


I tested both lenses and the above reflects exactly my thoughts. The colour on the Tokina was a bit on the cold side. In the end I kept the Tokina because the Sigma's autofocus loved hunting and the Tokina's was fast and spot on. 

You can't go wrong with either lens (assuming you find a good copy of the Sigma).


----------



## 2fastlx

Thanks for the replies. How useful do you find the 10-20mm range for automotive photography?


----------



## sean7488

static shots or rolling/racing shots?


----------



## ratssass

is the tamron 10-24 not even in the ballpark?...the reason i ask,is,i just rented it for the weekend.this is the second time i've rented this.The only thing I can actually compare it against,hands on,is the nikkor 12-24,which is not in my budget.I keep hearing the same thing about the sigma,decent lens if you get a good copy.Are they that hit or miss?


----------



## 2fastlx

sean7488 said:


> static shots or rolling/racing shots?



Static posed shots


----------



## 2fastlx

ratssass said:


> is the tamron 10-24 not even in the ballpark?...the reason i ask,is,i just rented it for the weekend.this is the second time i've rented this.The only thing I can actually compare it against,hands on,is the nikkor 12-24,which is not in my budget.I keep hearing the same thing about the sigma,decent lens if you get a good copy.Are they that hit or miss?



I haven't put much thought in the tamron   Seems like every one talks about the sigma and tokina. I've had good luck with sigma before so it's on my short list.


----------



## Dao

ratssass said:


> is the tamron 10-24 not even in the ballpark?...the reason i ask,is,i just rented it for the weekend.this is the second time i've rented this.The only thing I can actually compare it against,hands on,is the nikkor 12-24,which is not in my budget.I keep hearing the same thing about the sigma,decent lens if you get a good copy.Are they that hit or miss?




This article reviews the Canon, 2 Sigmas, the Tokina ver1 and the Tamron 10-24mm

JuzaPhoto - Sigma, Canon, Tamron and Tokina APS-C Wide-Angles


----------



## ratssass

Thanks,Dao....I'm pretty much sold on the Sigma 10-20 3.5,but again,"if you get a good copy" keeps haunting me.I guess the return policy will be the deal-breaker...


----------



## JohnTrav

Glad I came across this thread. I am having the same problem also about choosing an ultra wide angle lens. I am thinking about getting the tokina for the 7D and have heard really good things. 

Sigma I did not really thing about though and now that I seem this I am back to researching what one to get. 

OP post something on here after you make your  decision and purchase a lens so I can see your thoughts.


----------



## 2fastlx

Dao said:


> ratssass said:
> 
> 
> 
> is the tamron 10-24 not even in the ballpark?...the reason i ask,is,i just rented it for the weekend.this is the second time i've rented this.The only thing I can actually compare it against,hands on,is the nikkor 12-24,which is not in my budget.I keep hearing the same thing about the sigma,decent lens if you get a good copy.Are they that hit or miss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This article reviews the Canon, 2 Sigmas, the Tokina ver1 and the Tamron 10-24mm
> 
> JuzaPhoto - Sigma, Canon, Tamron and Tokina APS-C Wide-Angles
Click to expand...


Seems more and more like I'm gonna try the sigma.


----------

