Nikon 17-55 2.8 vs (more or less) Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

Damian Brown

Damian Brown

Messages
2,721
Name
Damian Brown
Edit My Images
No
I tend to shoot at the widest end of the 17-55 2.8 on a nikon crop body. Recently my eye was turned to the Sigma 14 2.8, but I haven't had chance to try it.

I have read good reviews for the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and am wondering if it's worth having a play with it. I like the idea that I can get wiiiiider and do something a little different while still having the speed. And by the looks of it, the lens is lighter to so on a long session it may work out well.

So... who has experience with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on a Nikon crop body ideally? How did you find it? If you have used the nikon 17-55 2.8, other than the longer length on the Nikon, how would you compare the two re image quality and focus speed?

Thanks!
 
I have the 17-55mm and I'll be getting the 11-16 to supplement it. There's no overlap - so you either want super wide or you don't.
 
Oh I want super wide but I want the quality to go with it. How did you get on with it? Or have you yet to try?
 
I have the 17-55 and the Sigma 14mm...,.

The 17-55 is a brilliantly useful lens BUT (and this applies to any 17-50/55) the minimum focussing distance isn't close enough for some of my editorial work, hence why I also have the 14mm.

I had both Nikon and Tokina versions of the 12-24 and both were ace but I wasn't using the full zoom range, so I swapped the latter for the Sigma.

The Siggy is superbly sharp, very well built, and wide on crop (and can be used in FX too). Minimum focus distance is something stupid like 5cm from the front element, so is extremely versatile.

Flaws? No front filter attachment (it uses rear gelatin filters) and it can catch a bit of flare easily from light coming in from 90 degrees. Other than that, can't fault it.
 
Can't compare the Tokina to the Nikon as the Tokina is a lot wider. Had one with my old D90 and it was very sharp and well built.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top