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?
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?