Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
Nikkor 10-24 or Tokina 11-16?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Felisek" data-source="post: 327188" data-attributes="member: 23887"><p><em>Alea iacta est</em>. I have ordered the Tokina. If anyone is going to have a similar dilemma, here are my personal reasons for choosing Tokina over Nikkor. You might agree with them or not.</p><p></p><p>1. Price. The best prices I found in the UK are £356 for the Tokina and £526 for the Nikkor. The difference will help me finance another lens/flash I intend to buy soon. Considering what you can get from the competition (and there is also Sigma 10-20 mm and Tokina 12-14 mm) I think the Nikkor is overpriced.</p><p></p><p>2. Image quality. Almost all reviewers agree that the Tokina is sharper. I know, sharpness is often overrated, and there are many other factors influencing image quality. But I like my pictures sharp. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite6" alt=":cool:" title="Cool :cool:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":cool:" /> There is no unanimous agreement on which lens has better colour and contranst, but there are no obvious complaints.</p><p></p><p>3. Flares. Yes, the Tokina is known to be prone to nasty flares and ghosts when taking pictures against bright light, and the Nikkor is much more resistant in this matter. This was one of my main concerns about this lens. However, I have seen dozens of beautiful pictures on the web, taken with the Tokina, with no flares at all, even pictures of sunsets and sunrises, with the sun in the frame. I have taken over a thousand pictures with my Sigma 17-50 and never suffered a flare. Yesterday, I made a simple test: I took a picture with the sun in the frame (about 3 hours before sunset, so it was bright). The result was an awful flare! It was all over the picture, and included a little bright rainbow in the middle. I came to a conclusion that flares are less of a problem in real live, in particular if you know what you are doing.</p><p></p><p>4. f2.8. Yes, I'm going to use the lens mainly for landscape photography, where f2.8 is largely irrelevant. But then again, if this is available, why not use it? I like taking an occasional picture inside a church when travelling and sightseeing. I got some great photos using my Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 completely handheld in darkish churches. Getting much wider with another f2.8 lens might be a bonus. Also, I'm considering now taking some pictures of stars and the Milky Way. This might be cool. </p><p></p><p>5. Range. Indeed, the Nikkor gives me 17-24mm extra range, which I use quite often in landscape photography. However, my Sigma covers this range and gives me fantastic image quality. Yes, it is nice when you don't have to change a lens too often, but I suspect the Nikkor 10-24mm would be inferior to my Sigma in this range, so I might regret not swapping lenses later. I decided that I can keep one lens in a pouch attached to my belt, which makes chaining easier. I used to do it with my old film camera, when, apart from my kit zoom, I kept a 24mm prime in a pouch for those occasional wider shots. I decided that I can live with it and now I'm going to have two lenses that complement each other nicely: 11-16mm f2.8 and 17-50mm f2.8.</p><p></p><p>6. Reach. Yes, the Nikkor gives me extra 1 mm at the wide end. I have to compromise on this.</p><p></p><p>7. Tokina quality control. There are reports of Tokina 11-16mm lenses not focusing properly, those these are rather rare. Unfortunately, I don't have any reliable statistics on this, so I simply have to take the plunge and hope for the best. This is why I decided to buy it from Panamoz, who have good reputation here, they give two weeks to return a product and one year of replace-with-new warranty in case something goes wrong.</p><p></p><p>Tokina now ordered, should arrive early next week. Looking forward to it!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Felisek, post: 327188, member: 23887"] [I]Alea iacta est[/I]. I have ordered the Tokina. If anyone is going to have a similar dilemma, here are my personal reasons for choosing Tokina over Nikkor. You might agree with them or not. 1. Price. The best prices I found in the UK are £356 for the Tokina and £526 for the Nikkor. The difference will help me finance another lens/flash I intend to buy soon. Considering what you can get from the competition (and there is also Sigma 10-20 mm and Tokina 12-14 mm) I think the Nikkor is overpriced. 2. Image quality. Almost all reviewers agree that the Tokina is sharper. I know, sharpness is often overrated, and there are many other factors influencing image quality. But I like my pictures sharp. :cool: There is no unanimous agreement on which lens has better colour and contranst, but there are no obvious complaints. 3. Flares. Yes, the Tokina is known to be prone to nasty flares and ghosts when taking pictures against bright light, and the Nikkor is much more resistant in this matter. This was one of my main concerns about this lens. However, I have seen dozens of beautiful pictures on the web, taken with the Tokina, with no flares at all, even pictures of sunsets and sunrises, with the sun in the frame. I have taken over a thousand pictures with my Sigma 17-50 and never suffered a flare. Yesterday, I made a simple test: I took a picture with the sun in the frame (about 3 hours before sunset, so it was bright). The result was an awful flare! It was all over the picture, and included a little bright rainbow in the middle. I came to a conclusion that flares are less of a problem in real live, in particular if you know what you are doing. 4. f2.8. Yes, I'm going to use the lens mainly for landscape photography, where f2.8 is largely irrelevant. But then again, if this is available, why not use it? I like taking an occasional picture inside a church when travelling and sightseeing. I got some great photos using my Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 completely handheld in darkish churches. Getting much wider with another f2.8 lens might be a bonus. Also, I'm considering now taking some pictures of stars and the Milky Way. This might be cool. 5. Range. Indeed, the Nikkor gives me 17-24mm extra range, which I use quite often in landscape photography. However, my Sigma covers this range and gives me fantastic image quality. Yes, it is nice when you don't have to change a lens too often, but I suspect the Nikkor 10-24mm would be inferior to my Sigma in this range, so I might regret not swapping lenses later. I decided that I can keep one lens in a pouch attached to my belt, which makes chaining easier. I used to do it with my old film camera, when, apart from my kit zoom, I kept a 24mm prime in a pouch for those occasional wider shots. I decided that I can live with it and now I'm going to have two lenses that complement each other nicely: 11-16mm f2.8 and 17-50mm f2.8. 6. Reach. Yes, the Nikkor gives me extra 1 mm at the wide end. I have to compromise on this. 7. Tokina quality control. There are reports of Tokina 11-16mm lenses not focusing properly, those these are rather rare. Unfortunately, I don't have any reliable statistics on this, so I simply have to take the plunge and hope for the best. This is why I decided to buy it from Panamoz, who have good reputation here, they give two weeks to return a product and one year of replace-with-new warranty in case something goes wrong. Tokina now ordered, should arrive early next week. Looking forward to it! [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
Nikkor 10-24 or Tokina 11-16?
Top