# Tokina Royal 12-24 vs 11-16



## dEARlEADER (May 21, 2008)

Anyone going through this?

I need an ultrawide to complete my little kit and can't decide which of these two to go with.....

11-16 is f2.8 but does this matter? aren't most ultra wides taken at sharp apertures like F9??

The 12-24 is cheaper and available to me NOW!!

The 11-16 has superior sharpness..... but not in stores yet(canada)...

The 12-24 would compliment the lousy wide end of my 18-200

The 11-16 costs more..... but... not that much more....


uhhhhhhh....... i dunnnnnnoooo...... help me?


----------



## Antithesis (May 21, 2008)

Super-wides have a very broad depth of field. It's still there, but a 85mm at F4 is going to have a much slimmer depth of field than a 12-24, 12mm @ F4. That being said, I used my Tokina 12-24 at F4 very often, it works well with distant subjects and remained very sharp. 

The 11-16 is aimed more at photojournalists who might need an extra stop of light, or people who want to play with DOF in a wide-angle. Also, the extra mm at the wide end actual does more than you think. It'll be ~8-9% wider than a 12mm, which is something to think about. 

I'd gauge your purchase on those criteria. If you need a little extra wideness and an extra stop, then the 2.8 will be for you. Keep in mind you can handhold at 12mm safely at around 1/15th, and I've handheld one down to 1/4 and gotten a very sharp image. I do have steady hands though.


----------



## Rhubarb (May 22, 2008)

I currently own and use the Tokina 12-24mm, and it is one of my favourite lenses. That said when I bought it there was no such thing as the 11-16mm and the real toss up for me was between the 12-24mm and the Sigma 10-20mm.

I wish the 11-16mm was around then because it would have made my decision easier and I probably would have got it.

Now I am pretty much going through what you're are, because I am considering selling the 12-24mm to get the 11-16mm (I could just have both but that seems a tad silly to me).

The two obvious things about the 11-16 is that it is wider and as Antithesis mentioned 1mm at the wide end makes a big difference to the field of view and its sharper (it&#8217;s the sharpest lens in its category). And I really like both of these attributes in a SWA lens.

However the thing that I have really came to appreciate about the 12-24mm is the long end. It makes the lens a lot more versatile particularly for me, as I seem to take the majority of my shots between 17-24mm on a normal zoom. So with the 12-24mm it allows me to get the shots I usually take with a normal zoom as well as the ability to go super wide. 

That said you buy these lenses so you can go wide, and with 11-16mm being wider and exceptionally sharp and with a trek through the Himalayas coming up later this year I will probably end up getting it and off loading the 12-24mm.

  So I guess it comes down to if the extra zoom range is important to you (as mentioned I think it makes the lens very versatile, to the point that you can use it as a wide walk around lens) or whether you hold wider and sharper in higher regard.


----------



## usayit (May 22, 2008)

Just my two cents....

Do any of the lenses have DOF markings on the barrel????

I have a 12mm lens that I shoot often which requires you to zone focus.  It is a load of fun to shoot from the hip and the results are wonderful.  As already stated, ultra-wides have a very broad DOF.  

For me, DOF markings on a wide angle lens is an absolute must (for prefocusing and setting hyperfocal).


----------



## JimmyO (May 22, 2008)

Well
All i have to add is that i have the sigma 10-20mm. Its a great lens. ITs pretty slow but im able to work around that.


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 22, 2008)

Great advice on both lenses....

so great in fact I am no further along...

I lost an ebay bid for the 12-24 last night... so maybe that's fate for the 11-16...

but maybe not....  the distortion @ 18mm on my 18-200 is pretty bad... the 12-24 would certainly help me with that aspect.... then again if I used the 11-16 tight @ 16mm it's only a 2mm difference that I'm missing...  I could always crop the excess... and the sharpness on the 11-16 is superior...

one thing I'm a little worried about is I see initial reviews on lenses and the pro's love them (they seem to get great copies)... then when the lens goes mass production people start complaining about soft copies/poor quality etc..

I really haven't read anything bad about the 12-24 regarding these types of issues.. maybe this speaks to the specific lens or maybe this speaks to the build quality of tokina..... so I'm a little worried about how the 11-16 will unfold....


----------



## Antithesis (May 22, 2008)

There will be significant distortion around the edges of any wide angle, and they tend to bend some lines in certain areas of the image. Don't plan on getting a distortion free image when going that wide unless you want to drop the money on a rectilinear (which will still stretch things out on the edges). 

Buy from a camera store and you don't have to worry about getting a poor copy or not. You can just swap it for another. 

Some of my best images are from a wide-angle though. When you start adding foreground interest to your landscapes and just about everything else, you can really start to appreciate a super-wide. Bah, I'm going to need to get one again, I'm starting to miss mine


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 22, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> There will be significant distortion around the edges of any wide angle, and they tend to bend some lines in certain areas of the image. Don't plan on getting a distortion free image when going that wide unless you want to drop the money on a rectilinear (which will still stretch things out on the edges).
> 
> Buy from a camera store and you don't have to worry about getting a poor copy or not. You can just swap it for another.
> 
> Some of my best images are from a wide-angle though. When you start adding foreground interest to your landscapes and just about everything else, you can really start to appreciate a super-wide. Bah, I'm going to need to get one again, I'm starting to miss mine



Yes ... but think this way.... the barrel distortion is huge on my Nikkor 18-200 from 18mm till 24mm.. and the 12-24 extended from 18-24 only has mild pincushion.... this tells me maybe I should get the 12-24...

but the 11-16 is a better lens and only costs $100 more... and goes wider.. this is why I'm buying a wide lens....

incidently the distortion on the 11-16 all through the focal is supposed to be nominal.... apparently because the zoom range is so small.....

i would most likely use the wide lens wide open about 90% of the time...


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 22, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> There will be significant distortion around the edges of any wide angle, and they tend to bend some lines in certain areas of the image. Don't plan on getting a distortion free image when going that wide unless you want to drop the money on a rectilinear (which will still stretch things out on the edges).
> 
> Buy from a camera store and you don't have to worry about getting a poor copy or not. You can just swap it for another.
> 
> Some of my best images are from a wide-angle though. When you start adding foreground interest to your landscapes and just about everything else, you can really start to appreciate a super-wide. Bah, I'm going to need to get one again, I'm starting to miss mine




Just out of curiousity... why did you sell your wide lens?? Did you not use it enough??


----------



## Rhubarb (May 23, 2008)

dEARlEADER said:


> Yes ... but think this way.... the barrel distortion is huge on my Nikkor 18-200 from 18mm till 24mm.. and the 12-24 extended from 18-24 only has mild pincushion.... this tells me maybe I should get the 12-24...
> 
> but the 11-16 is a better lens and only costs $100 more... and goes wider.. this is why I'm buying a wide lens....
> 
> ...



Also the distortion with the 12-24mm is quite uniform so it is straight forward to correct in PP. I would expect the same from the 11-16mm.


----------



## Mav (May 24, 2008)

I just picked up the Tokina 11-16/2.8 recently and love it.  Time will tell whether I'll hold on to it or not.  The build quality is amazing, the photos are sharp, and it's an f/2.8.  Will just need to see how I end up using it.  The 16mm long end _is_ limiting.  The 12-24 lenses will let you get out to an almost normal view which makes them a bit more versatile, but they're not as wide and only f/4.  I like to do a lot of transitional or available light photography where the f/2.8 speed becomes essential.  Based on how I end up using it, I may or may not end up swapping with someone who has a 12-24 and wants the 11-16.  I'll probably hold on to the 11-16 though, because I have two bodies and can just stick another lens on the other body.  The 10 vs 11 vs 12mm wideness isn't as critical to me since if I _really_ want to go wide I have the 10.5mm DX fisheye for Nikon which is far wider than any of these.


----------



## dEARlEADER (May 24, 2008)

Mav said:


> I just picked up the Tokina 11-16/2.8 recently and love it.  Time will tell whether I'll hold on to it or not.  The build quality is amazing, the photos are sharp, and it's an f/2.8.  Will just need to see how I end up using it.  The 16mm long end _is_ limiting.  The 12-24 lenses will let you get out to an almost normal view which makes them a bit more versatile, but they're not as wide and only f/4.  I like to do a lot of transitional or available light photography where the f/2.8 speed becomes essential.  Based on how I end up using it, I may or may not end up swapping with someone who has a 12-24 and wants the 11-16.  I'll probably hold on to the 11-16 though, because I have two bodies and can just stick another lens on the other body.  The 10 vs 11 vs 12mm wideness isn't as critical to me since if I _really_ want to go wide I have the 10.5mm DX fisheye for Nikon which is far wider than any of these.



yeah well keep me in mind Mav.... I ended up buying the 12-24 from someone off the forum... figured I'd wait on the 11-16 until the hype settles down and some used ones hit the market.... I pretty much plan on keeping this lens @ f9 for scapes and buildings... I don't mind using pods... I don't think the extra stop is gonna kill me unless I find some indoor uses for this lens...

that said... I still want the 11-16... Ken Rockwells review showing corner detail comparisons against the nikkor pretty much sold me.... the 11-16 is wicked sharp... we'll see what happens in mass production...

your a lucky man to have that weapon...


----------



## Mav (May 24, 2008)

Here's one at 11mm and f/9








11mm, 1/10s, f/2.8, iso1600


----------



## LWW (Jun 8, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> There will be significant distortion around the edges of any wide angle, and they tend to bend some lines in certain areas of the image. Don't plan on getting a distortion free image when going that wide unless you want to drop the money on a rectilinear (which will still stretch things out on the edges).


If you have Photoshop CS2 then you can use the lens distortion filter and correct things without the need for a rectilinear lens.

LWW


----------



## icassell (Jun 9, 2008)

I have the Sigma 10-20 and find I usually use it at the ultrawide end.  There is a big difference on a crop-sensor camera between 10 and 12.  I love the 10-20 -- you might consider that one as well.


----------

