Tokina 11 - 16 or Sigma 10 - 20?

J

JohnB

Senior Member
I just bought a Sigma 10-20 4-5.6. I bought it used but it was only a few months old. I would have been just as happy with the Tokina, and was actually looking for one; but came across the Sigma at a really good price and jumped on it.

I have not used it much yet, but can say that it feels solid, it is a little heavier then I thought it would be, the lens bag it comes with is a bit bulky and takes up too much space in my camera bag; but this lens focuses fast and is so much fun to use.

If you are buying new, give them both a try, and pick the one you like. Buy from a reputable dealer and take it back if it turns out that you don't like it. If you are buying used, just look around for a good deal, but I would go for either one.
 
Michael J.

Michael J.

Senior Member
I am just thinking about these two lenses. Maybe the sigma is th eon eI should go for it cos of my ambitions of taking landscape - seacapes
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
siamthai1 said:
I am just thinking about these two lenses. Maybe the sigma is the one I should go for it cos of my ambitions of taking landscape - seacapes
Click to expand...
I've had opportunity to shoot with both of these lenses and from what I can tell the Tokina has better contrast than the Sigma but you pay for that because the Tokina is also more prone to CA (purple in particular) than the Sigma. I guess it's true... You can't have it both ways! Anyway, CA is really easy to correct in post processing so I don't really worry about it. Distortion is surprisingly well controlled with both lenses and is also easily corrected in post processing when it shows up, at least it is with Photoshop, so again, this isn't really much of anything to consider in my book. Both lenses are superbly sharp in the center but the Tokina is the sharper of the two if you go to full size crops and really start to examine the corners. That's not to say the Siggy *isn't* sharp in the corners, just that the Toki is sharp-ER in the corners. And again, that's at 100% and comparing shots side-by-side.

Based on my experience, I think you'd be happy with either one. Neither lens is going to make or break you taking great landscapes, that's up to you.

EDIT: This article seems to match my experiences pretty much exactly.

Side by Side: Sigma 10-20 vs Tokina 11-16

.....
 
Last edited:
A

adox66

Senior Member
I have the opportunity to buy the original Tokina 11-16 for decent enough money. The only potential issue is, as heres where I`m looking food some advice, I have a D3200 so not built in focus on the camera body, so I won't have auto focus with this lens if I get it.
I intend to use it nearly exclusively for landscapes and when shooting landscapes i usually use live view and manual focus anyway, so maybe not such an issue. The mark 2 version has the focus motor in the lens but new is twice the price of the first one that I can get second hand. I`d love to hear what people think and if it should be a deal breaker. The other option is the Sigma 10-20 which is a little more money but not much.

Apologies to the OP if I am hijacking the thread. I will start my own if this isn't appropriate but the subject matter is very similar. :)

Thanks in advance.
 
W

WhiteLight

Senior Member
By
adox66 said:
I have the opportunity to buy the original Tokina 11-16 for decent enough money. The only potential issue is, as heres where I`m looking food some advice, I have a D3200 so not built in focus on the camera body, so I won't have auto focus with this lens if I get it.
I intend to use it nearly exclusively for landscapes and when shooting landscapes i usually use live view and manual focus anyway, so maybe not such an issue. The mark 2 version has the focus motor in the lens but new is twice the price of the first one that I can get second hand. I`d love to hear what people think and if it should be a deal breaker. The other option is the Sigma 10-20 which is a little more money but not much.

Apologies to the OP if I am hijacking the thread. I will start my own if this isn't appropriate but the subject matter is very similar. :)

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

The new pro dx I I version comes with a focus motor and is definitely a better option than the older model.. Worth the money
Otherwise either the sigma or Tokina are brilliant lenses.. Can't go wrong with either

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk
 
E

eidian

Senior Member
adox66 said:
I have the opportunity to buy the original Tokina 11-16 for decent enough money. The only potential issue is, as heres where I`m looking food some advice, I have a D3200 so not built in focus on the camera body, so I won't have auto focus with this lens if I get it.
I intend to use it nearly exclusively for landscapes and when shooting landscapes i usually use live view and manual focus anyway, so maybe not such an issue. The mark 2 version has the focus motor in the lens but new is twice the price of the first one that I can get second hand. I`d love to hear what people think and if it should be a deal breaker. The other option is the Sigma 10-20 which is a little more money but not much.

Apologies to the OP if I am hijacking the thread. I will start my own if this isn't appropriate but the subject matter is very similar. :)

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I've found that when someone purchases a lens with one intended purpose, it ends up getting used for several others. Plan on using this lens for landscapes only so an MF lens will be fine? Okay, what about the ONE time you are going to want to use it for a large group shot? People aren't quite as patient as a mountain landscape is when it comes to focusing...shorten that time three-fold if there are kids in the group. How about when you want to be in a group picture? How nice would it be to have AF when you're triggering the camera via remote?

I'm not saying to get the Sigma because I have one (and it kicks @ss by-the-way)--I'm saying get AF with all of your lenses.
 
A

adox66

Senior Member
WhiteLight said:
By

The new pro dx I I version comes with a focus motor and is definitely a better option than the older model.. Worth the money
Otherwise either the sigma or Tokina are brilliant lenses.. Can't go wrong with either

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks for for the reply. Yeah ideally the dx11 would be my choice but for nearly twice the money of the original I don't know if I can justify the difference.
 
A

adox66

Senior Member
eidian said:
I've found that when someone purchases a lens with one intended purpose, it ends up getting used for several others. Plan on using this lens for landscapes only so an MF lens will be fine? Okay, what about the ONE time you are going to want to use it for a large group shot? People aren't quite as patient as a mountain landscape is when it comes to focusing...shorten that time three-fold if there are kids in the group. How about when you want to be in a group picture? How nice would it be to have AF when you're triggering the camera via remote?

I'm not saying to get the Sigma because I have one (and it kicks @ss by-the-way)--I'm saying get AF with all of your lenses.
Click to expand...


Hi eidian,

Yeah some really good points there about AF and to be fair you have nearly talked me out of the original dx Tokina.

The dx11 version is just too much of a price difference. I'm most likely getting the big stopper from Lee along with a filter ring and holder and buying the dx11 would wipe out that budget, or at least getting the original dx or the Sigma would enable me to pick up the Lee gear all for the same money as I would spend on the dx11.

So it's looking like the Sigma. Again on this I was looking at the older lens, not the 3.5. Can I ask which one you have and also what it's main use is?
 
W

WhiteLight

Senior Member
adox66 said:
Thanks for for the reply. Yeah ideally the dx11 would be my choice but for nearly twice the money of the original I don't know if I can justify the difference.
Click to expand...

The early model isn't bad either. Just that the auto focus motor helps, but you can surely get great pics with the older model too.. The best would be what you can get and use :)

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk
 
E

eidian

Senior Member
adox66 said:
Hi eidian,

Yeah some really good points there about AF and to be fair you have nearly talked me out of the original dx Tokina.

The dx11 version is just too much of a price difference. I'm most likely getting the big stopper from Lee along with a filter ring and holder and buying the dx11 would wipe out that budget, or at least getting the original dx or the Sigma would enable me to pick up the Lee gear all for the same money as I would spend on the dx11.

So it's looking like the Sigma. Again on this I was looking at the older lens, not the 3.5. Can I ask which one you have and also what it's main use is?
Click to expand...


I have the older 4/5.6 that I found in Adorama's Used section (scored it for $389 in E+ condition). I use the Sigma whenever I need more width than the 35 f/1.8 prime can offer.
 
L

Lee

Senior Member
eidian said:
I've found that when someone purchases a lens with one intended purpose, it ends up getting used for several others. Plan on using this lens for landscapes only so an MF lens will be fine? Okay, what about the ONE time you are going to want to use it for a large group shot? People aren't quite as patient as a mountain landscape is when it comes to focusing...shorten that time three-fold if there are kids in the group. How about when you want to be in a group picture? How nice would it be to have AF when you're triggering the camera via remote?

I'm not saying to get the Sigma because I have one (and it kicks @ss by-the-way)--I'm saying get AF with all of your lenses.
Click to expand...


I second this - from experience. I was ok with the 11-16 older version because when I bought it I had the D90 so it did autofocus for me on my camera. I bought it thinking I would try and learn landscape photography and see how I like it. Well as it turns out I'm not really into landscapes and doubt I ever will be. I love looking at other people's beautiful landscape images, but I just don't see the shot. Now with that said, I love my Tokina. But I use it for everything but what I purchased it for. I have done some interesting people shots with it (definitely not what it was designed for but was great for Halloween ;) ) and use it for night and low light shots, getting up close for still lifes and all kinds of other things. But as stated by eidian, I didn't use it of the purpose intended when I bought it. Even a specific purpose lens is only limited to that specific purpose by your own sense of adventure when testing to see what does and doesn't work for you. Get a lens that works on your camera body.

One other thing about the Tokina with that won't AF on your camera, my brother borrowed my lens to try on his D5000. He couldnt' manual focus because everything was too "far away" for him to be able to see if he actually had it in focus properly and the focus indicator didn't work on his camera so he ended up setting it to infinity and hoping for the best. He bought the newer version about 6 months later
 
A

adox66

Senior Member
Can I throw one more in for consideration?

[h=1]Tokina AT-X 12-24mm F:4 AF PRO DX11[/h]Anyone got any experience of this lens. Had my mind made up on the Sigma but this can be got for a little more money and maybe worth considering?
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
adox66 said:
Can I throw one more in for consideration?

[h=1]Tokina AT-X 12-24mm F:4 AF PRO DX11[/h]Anyone got any experience of this lens. Had my mind made up on the Sigma but this can be got for a little more money and maybe worth considering?
Click to expand...
In truth, any of the lenses you are considering would work very, very well. The difference is a few mm of focal length and maybe some sharpness in the corners you'd need to pixel peep to find. Far more important than the lens *on* your camera is the technique you employ from *behind* the camera. If you want to improve your photography, worry more about the latter and less about the former.

.....
 
L

Lee

Senior Member
I've tried the 12-24 mm Tokina (own the 11-16) and they are both great lenses. The 11-16 definitely has the upper edge on sharpness, especially wide open, but unless you were comparing images side by side you'd need to be very particular and attentive to notice any difference. If your camera doesn't have a built in AF motor, go for the 12 - 24 if you're not going to plump for the 11-16 with AF. If the price margin is bearable for you I'd personally go with the 11-16 mm, between those two
 
W

WhiteLight

Senior Member
Is there much difference in cost between the pro dx and pro dx II? It's just a difference if $35 here

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk
 
A

adox66

Senior Member
WhiteLight said:
Is there much difference in cost between the pro dx and pro dx II? It's just a difference if $35 here

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Huge difference over here. Around 100 euro in the difference. It's nearly 700 euro for the DX11 here which is mad money and I couldn't justify that outlay on a DX lens.

Anyway things moved over quick and I bought a new copy of the Sigma today.
Also got a Lee foundation kit, a 77mm wide angle adaptor and a .6 ND hard graduated Lee filter second hand to go with it.
Also bought the Lee big Stopper with the lens so while I am now well set for nice long wide exposures, I am am also officially broke!
 
Top