Nikkor 10-24 or Tokina 11-16?

Felisek

Senior Member
I want to buy an ultra-wide lens (mostly for landscape photography) and I cannot decide between Nikkor 10-24 and Tokina 11-16. I have read loads of reviews, including opinions on this website. I know their advantages and disadvantages, but somehow I cannot make my mind up. Hence, I thought I'd ask for your opinions.

Image quality of the Tokina is supposed to be excellent. Ken Rockwell calls it the best, the sharpest and the fastest UW lens in the world (but Ken Rockwell has strong opinions not necessarily based on facts). Many owners commented on how sharp it is in this forum. On the other hand, there are reports of awful flares in pictures taken against the sun, though this might be an extreme case and not unexpected from an ultra wide lens. There are a few unhappy customers on Amazon.com commenting on focusing issues, so there might be inconsistency between individual lenses. The Nikkor is supposed to be quite good, perhaps not as sharp as the Tokina, but this might be important only for pixel peepers (which, I admit, I'm a little bit of). And this would be a Nikon lens on a Nikon camera.

Focal length range is a major factor here. I have an excellent Sigma 17-50, to which the Tokina would be a nice complement. However, the 11-16 mm range makes it feel almost like a prime lens. I'm worried that I might have to change lenses too often, which in outdoor conditions is not easy: I usually find I need to sit down and put the camera on my knees facing up to change a lens securely. Also, every time I do this I increase the chances of getting dust on my sensor. I noticed that most of my landscape photos taken with my Sigma are between 17 and 24 mm, so the Nikkor with its excellent 10-24 mm range would probably stay on the camera for most of my hikes. This means fewer lens changes and less hassle. This is something I have to consider very seriously, apart from the image quality.

The last, but by no means the least factor is the price. The cheapest I managed to find in the UK is on Panamoz, where the Tokina is £356 and the Nikkor is £526. Quite a difference. But then again, a lens is a long-term investment. I don't want to find myself in a situation, where, in two years time, I'll be kicking myself for not paying a bit more for a lens that would make me more happy.

I'm sure many of you understand my conundrum very well. There is quite a lot of money involved, so I want to make the right choice (or at least convince myself that I'm making the right choice). I'd appreciate your comments and suggestions. Is there anyone here who has experience with both lenses?
 

TedG954

Senior Member
Check out the Tokina 12-24/4. It is (will be) on my D3300 90% of the time. I believe you'll find the extra range (24 vs 16) very helpful.

Photo quality is very good.
 

kamaccord

Senior Member
I too shoot with the Sigma 17-50mm and I am also considering the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. In addition, I also do not enjoy having to change lenses often when shooting landscapes. However, I plan to place image quality as my top priority which seems the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 delivers. Another consideration could possibly be the Tokina 12-28mm f/4 listed in the link below with reviews.

Tokina 12-28mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX Lens for Nikon ATXAF128DXN B&H
 

Felisek

Senior Member
Yes, I did consider Tokina 12-28, but I don't think it is optically any better than the Nikkor, while it missed 2 mm at the wide end. It doesn't sound like much, but in relative terms it is 20%. So, I don't consider this lens too seriously, as in this range I'd rather get the Nikikor.

I found a few full-resolution images from Nikkor 10-24 on D7100 at pixel-peeper. They look very decent, and only wider apertures show a little softening in corners. The same can be said about Tokina 11-16, though.

Though decision.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I had the Nikon 10-24 when I was shooting Dx, it is an excellent lens. I went through the same decision process and decided wider is better in an ultra-wide lens; Range was also, but a secondary factor to me. I'd recommend either one, but if range is important (and fewer lens changes), I'd go with the Nikon. All this being said, you will find that we all like what we own :).
 

Felisek

Senior Member
All this being said, you will find that we all like what we own :).

I know! I must admit I do the same. When people ask about lenses A and B, I feel an urge to tell them: use lens C, I have it and it's brilliant.

I was hoping that there might be someone here who owns both lenses...
 

fotojack

Senior Member
Seriously, when it comes down to it, the ultimate decision is yours alone. After all, it's your money, and you'll be the one using it. No matter how many opinions you get from others, it's like Rick M said.....we all like what we own for our own particular reasons. Me, personally I can't wait to be able to afford the Tokina 11-16. IMHO, it's the perfect wide angle lens for a crop camera.

Go and rent both and see which one you like best, then decide which one you want to spend your money on.

So to recap........your money...your decision. Good luck. :)
 

Felisek

Senior Member
Go and rent both and see which one you like best, then decide which one you want to spend your money on.

That would be the best option. However, lens rental is quite expensive here, in the UK. I checked a few online camera rental shops and the best price I found would be about £80 for both lenses, for three days (the shortest period they offer). I really don't want to add £80 on top of the lens price. A few of my friends have Nikon systems, but none of them has either of the lenses.

I have to rely on online reviews and opinions. :rolleyes-new:
 

Rick M

Senior Member
Just get the Nikon so you won't second guess yourself and lose sleep the rest of you life :). The extra cost will be cheaper than therapy!
 

Felisek

Senior Member
Alea iacta est. 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!
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Excellent write up, thanks for sharing. I'm pretty much in the same boat for the same reasons, with one slightly different concern on pricing. I expect I'll switch to FX sometime in the next year, so while both the Tokina and the Nikon 10-24 are DX lenses, I can more easily justify the cost of the Tokina. Even after going FX, my DX will stay, so I expect the Tokina to see continued use. Otherwise I agree with all your points, I just have not had an opportunity to try and create flares no the Tokina lens yet.
 

Felisek

Senior Member
Well, the lens has just arrived, except they (Panamoz) sent me the wrong version. I ordered the DXII, but they sent me the DX. It doesn't make that much difference, as my D7100 auto focuses with this lens very well. I took a few test pictures and they all look great. There is a little softness in the corners when fully open (as expected) which disappears at f4 or more. I even took a picture against the light, where the sun was just outside the corner, and this resulted in a tiny, hardly visible flare.

I have e-mailed Panamoz about the mistake. I will see what they say and how much hassle it is to replace the lens. I might keep this one. On the other hand, if I ever buy (or even borrow) a backup camera such as D3300, it will not autofocus...

Sigh.
 

Welshy74

Senior Member
Still trying to decide which one to get. There is only a £100 difference in price here in the UK between the Nikon and Pro-DXii 11-16mm. Is the Nikon £100 better?????
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Well, the lens has just arrived, except they (Panamoz) sent me the wrong version. I ordered the DXII, but they sent me the DX. ... Sigh.
My first Tokina 11-16mm came with a Canon mount. Grrrrr...

I advise you hold out for the one you want; I bet you'll be glad you did in the long run!

....
 

Felisek

Senior Member
Finally, I got exactly the lens I ordered. Took a few pictures of our new office space at work (we moved to a brand new building a few days ago). I'm quite impressed by Tokina's performance. Distortion is low and easy to correct, so verticals are straight. The fast f2.8 comes handy when taking handheld pictures indoors. Image quality is very good, though my first impression is that it is not as sharp as my Sigma 17-50. Close, but not there. And, of course, corners are quite soft, but I don't suppose there is any ultra-wide lens that doesn't suffer from soft corners. All of this doesn't really matter when viewing entire wide-angle pictures on screen, even a hi-res screen. They look brilliant.

Here is an example.
1MG_1843b.jpg
 
Last edited:

camilolo5

New member
Finally, I got exactly the lens I ordered. Took a few pictures of our new office space at work (we moved to a brand new building a few days ago). I'm quite impressed by Tokina's performance. Distortion is low and easy to correct, so verticals are straight. The fast f2.8 comes handy when taking handheld pictures indoors. Image quality is very good, though my first impression is that it is not as sharp as my Sigma 17-50. Close, but not there. And, of course, corners are quite soft, but I don't suppose there is any ultra-wide lens that doesn't suffer from soft corners. All of this doesn't really matter when viewing entire wide-angle pictures on screen, even a hi-res screen. They look brilliant.

Here is an example.
View attachment 101591

Felisek,

Thank you for your comments, I am currently makingthe same decision, basically I do Landscape (Sunrise and Sunsets) and Astrophotography,for which the Tokina 11-16mm seems to be pretty good, I would like to know wantyou experiment with the Flares/Flaws in the Tokina, is it a deal breaker forSunrise and Sunsets?

Thank you, Camilo
 
Felisek,

Thank you for your comments, I am currently makingthe same decision, basically I do Landscape (Sunrise and Sunsets) and Astrophotography,for which the Tokina 11-16mm seems to be pretty good, I would like to know wantyou experiment with the Flares/Flaws in the Tokina, is it a deal breaker forSunrise and Sunsets?

Thank you, Camilo

Thread is 2 years old but I can tell you that I have the Tokina 11-16 that is used on my D7100. I used it for sunsets and a lot of other things. Never had a problem at all with it. I liked it so much that I got the Tokina 16-28 for my D750 FX camera.
 
Top