Nikon 10-24 mm f/3.5-4.5 vs. Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8

irreversible1993 · Sep 11, 2011

So, currently I have a Nikon D80 and a kit-lens (Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6)

I am currently looking for a wide-angle lens to purchase and am stuck between the
Nikon 10-24 mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8

So, here's the scoop: I like the extra mm on the Nikon. The Tokina is faster, but I'd probably shoot at higher f-stops most of the time anyway, for higher clarity. The 2.8 would be nice at night if I am without a tripod.
And the Tokina doesn't go as high on the zoom, so it's purely a super wide-angle, while the Nikon is a super-wide, but can be a medium-to-wide as well, at 24 mm.

So it'd sound like Nikon is best, right? Well, I've heard that the Nikon lens isn't built well. I also heard that the Nikon lens has visible softness on the edges at the super wide range. And I've heard the Tokina has just better clarity and color overall in the shots. I was originally sold on the Tokina, but I want to know how truly better the quality is, and if you know anything else I should know, like distortion amount and such.

Oh, I guess it should be known that I want wide-angle primarily to do cool landscapes, city-scapes, and interior design shots. I want the best clarity and richness. But I also would like versatility. Will those extra 8 mm (from 16 to 24) considerably take away from the lens's flexibility? As in, would I constantly be having to change lenses? Or would the 16 mm still allow me to take general closer-up shots with minor placement adjustment?

Thanks! And please limit this to these two lenses only

I have researched others and these two are my favorites.

RRRoger · Sep 12, 2011

The D80 is not very capable in low light and the Tokina f/2.8 would help.

I chose the Nikkor 10-24 for my D5100. I like the versatility of this lens and have no issues at 10mm.
The D5100 is set at Auto ISO 6400 and I use a MonoPod or TriPod most of the time so I do not need f/2.8, and
if I did I would shoot with my Nikkor 17-35.

cgipson1 · Sep 12, 2011

I have a 10-24 Nikkor DX... and love it! Crisp, sharp images! Have not seen the softness you mentioned.

Nikon_Josh · Sep 12, 2011

Check out the reviews on Welcome to Photozone! .... this site rates the Tokina 11-16 as better than the Nikon 10-24. I think the 10-24 is a sharp and extremely good lens, but I also believe the third party equivalents are as good, if not slightly better for nearly half the price of the Nikon branded lens.

It sometimes seems as if Nikon rushed out the 10-24 when the competition was heating up and they didn't quite get this lens to be as good as it could be in terms of distortion and other factors.

You are clearly an intelligent consumer, one thing I've learnt is never just buy a lens based on the fact it has Nikon written on it.

analog.universe · Sep 12, 2011

I own the Tokina, and while I love it, it's certainly not at it's best wide open. I wouldn't base your selection on the fact that you're gonna shoot it at 2.8 all that often. Distortion is quite decent though, and the built quality is great. Stopped down it's wicked sharp. It does have some lateral CA at every aperture, really my only complaint with it. Have you researched the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 (NOT the 4-5.6 or whatever it is). Seems like a really nice lens, and has a wider range than the Tokina.