Tokina 11-16 vs Tokina 12-24 vs Sigma 10-20.. help please!

R

ricky1980

Messages
1,399
Name
Richard Wong
Edit My Images
No
I am looking for an ultra wide lens, battling between the listed three lens.

First of all, i really like the reviews i have seen for the 11-16 being fast 2.8. This lens has great CA and sharpness and it's performance seem to be excellent at wide open. Although it's missing that 16-24 (i got sigma 24-70) I think i should be ok. but this lens is considerably more expensive and kinda difficult to get hold off. Question is anyone has any experience with this lens?

Secondly the sigma 10-20 and the tokina 12-24, both lens in my opinion on similar in terms of performance and bang for buck, the 10-20 has the HSM which is good but not really critical. Again any one has any feedbacks?

so the point is what is your recommendation?
 
ive had the 10-20mm and was amazed with it, totally outstanding, but for some strange reason i sold it and got the tokina 12-24mm and TBH ive prefer the tokina, it just seems to have the edge.IMO
 
the thing i am after is good colour and good contrast, with outstanding CA performance under harsh contrast conditions. Basically landscape stuff, can you say those are true for the 12-24? and also is it a bit soft on f4 settings?
 
Can't comment on the 11-16 optically (never seen or used it).

Very personal, but I reckon - having owned both - the Tokina 12-24 is a nicer lens than the 10-20, it just seems to have more "oomph!"

The extra 2mm the 10-20 has over the 12-24 is also very useful though.

I've taken some decent shots with both in all honesty - but I think the Tokina 12-24 is pretty special as a lens.
 
puddleduck said:
Can't comment on the 11-16 optically (never seen or used it).

Very personal, but I reckon - having owned both - the Tokina 12-24 is a nicer lens than the 10-20, it just seems to have more "oomph!"

The extra 2mm the 10-20 has over the 12-24 is also very useful though.

I've taken some decent shots with both in all honesty - but I think the Tokina 12-24 is pretty special as a lens.
Click to expand...


i second that(y)
 
I wasn't all that impressed with the 10-20, but then I'm not a fan of converging verticals.

The 11-16 seems to get good reviews, but no-one up here sells it and I'm loathe to spend the cash on one without having a try first, although, tbf, I have no complaints about the Tokina 10-17 I have, so I would expect the 11-16 to be pretty good, barring the usual Tokina CA issues.
 
ricky1980 said:
the thing i was concerned about the 12-24 from http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/272-tokina-af-12-24mm-f4-at-x-pro-dx-canon-lens-test-report--review?start=2 is the CA, it's the worst according to them.

But i suppose it just means a little post processing in camera raw / light room
Click to expand...

The only time I was able to get CA from the 12-24 was in terrible lighting situations - ie high contrast / backlit.

Its possible to provoke it, but the picture will be ***** due to the lighting, and the CA (really purple fringing) will be least of your problems.
 
puddleduck said:
The only time I was able to get CA from the 12-24 was in terrible lighting situations - ie high contrast / backlit.

Its possible to provoke it, but the picture will be ***** due to the lighting, and the CA (really purple fringing) will be least of your problems.
Click to expand...

isn't that most of the case for a bright sky on darkish objects (in landscape terms)
 
Was looking at the same trio as you. The Tokina 11-16 sems the pic pf the bunch thanks to the wider angle of view and the faster aperture. Image quality seems amazing from the test shots I've seen. The 12-24 looks good too.

I don't rate the Sigma at all - terrible distortion around the edges of the frame - but loads on here seem to rave about it.
 
cool shot, did you correct the CA at all?

btw where is that, some giant toddler's toy, looks amazing
 
ricky1980 said:
cool shot, did you correct the CA at all?

btw where is that, some giant toddler's toy, looks amazing
Click to expand...

Nope, I never mess with any lens correction sliders.

Shot that in Yokohama, Japan.

I could certainly provoke CA / PF from a Tokina 12-24 if I wanted to, but really you'd generally have to have unflattering light - and again, the poor light will be the real problem with the image, not a bit of CA IMHO.

I think the "problem" is overstated.
 
ricky1980 said:
what you say poor light, what do you mean? flaring?
Click to expand...

No, sheet white sky, against tree branches would be the obvious one. You'll see a bit of a purple fringe if you look at the far corners.

With a decent sky (one thats photogenic) you won't get any CA.
 
thanks mate, there seems to be one knocking around in mpb....hmmm very tempted to click that buy button...
 
ricky1980 said:
thanks mate, there seems to be one knocking around in mpb....hmmm very tempted to click that buy button...
Click to expand...

Do it, you know it makes sense. (y) I've spent months banging my head against the wall trying to decide and finally fell on the Tokina 12-24 side. It would fill all my needs and runs nicely upto my Sigma 24-60mm.

But......I've decided to wait and buy meself a D90 instead (big payrise and expecting a bonus so might just get both). Credit crunch, what credit crunch. :D

Andy
 
I have the tokina 11-16 and it's a great lens. I have had in the past had both the Sigma 10-20 and Nikon 12-24 to compare this lens too. The Sigma 10-20 has qc issues and its a bit of a hit & miss whether you get a good one. I would say the tokina is on a par with the nikon 12-24 for build quality and picture quality.

If the tokina 12-24 has the same characteristics as the 11-16 then it would be a good lens too.
 
Had the 11-16 a short space and have been nothing but impressed. Sharpness is awesome and at f/2.8 I can shoot quite happily in poorer light.
 
puddleduck said:
The only time I was able to get CA from the 12-24 was in terrible lighting situations - ie high contrast / backlit.

Its possible to provoke it, but the picture will be ***** due to the lighting, and the CA (really purple fringing) will be least of your problems.
Click to expand...

That's interesting to hear, my 12-24 is the same, almost no CA at all. It's weird that a lot of reviews state it has really bad CA problems, I find it probably the best out of my lenses for it. I can only assume the Reviewers get iffy ones?:thinking:

But to the OP, the 12-24 is a brilliant lens, build quality wise it's like a tank, so if you can't justify the extra for the 11-16 (which is probably the best of the three) then go for the 12-24.:)
 
Essentially this comes down to how you intend to use the lens.If you are looking at a landscape lens then Tokina is the route to go.Personally I use ultra wides to get up close---particularly at night in the street.If you are going to use it to get close then frankly the differences which are marginal anyway between the lenses disappear---and so for me the Sigma was a no brainer---love it to bits !!
I dont like ultra wides for landscape--------They throw things too far back and introduce too much foreground and sky.Much better off with a 17-55 range lens.But for getting up close there is nothing better---wonderful effects and perspectives.
If landscapes are your main use then check out the Tokina---------If close is your thing then Sigma is the way to go.
Pete.
 
thanks guys, i got the Tokina 12-24 at the end. haven't started to play with it yet. but very much looking forward to that!
 
i bought a tokina 11-16mm f2.8 a while ago. it took me a while to get used to the wideness of it. i was disappointed wityh most of my shots. it took me a good few months to learn how to use it. once i did - wow, this is an awesome lens. i love the f2.8.

how is the 12-24 treating you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top