I have used both and the 12-24mm is more practical but the Tokina is sharper. The problem I had was the Tokina acts like a wide angle prime so I put it with cash towards a 14-24 when I went fullframe. If image quality is what your after get the Tokina especially if you shoot only wide. Get the Nikkor if you need the full wide angle focal lengths. With DX cropped 12-24 is 17-35 or so to keep that in mind. You get almost 16 which is nice and wide with the Tokina.

Slow focus? I have not experienced that on my 11-16. I guess it's a matter of perspective.

I have the Tokina 11-16 and Love it. My only gripe is the slow focus, if that’s important to you any Nikon with the silent wave motor will focus much faster. But at half the price and super sharp you really can’t beat it.

Thanks spraynpray, I thought that might be the case. Somehow I thought any lens with the "DX" designation would have the built in focusing motor?

anyone know of a place where Nikon mount lens focusing capability is summarized, perhaps in a table?

Ditto regarding the pic by Graphicnatured! Spectacular shot!

Welcome to the forum Tamiaphoto.

I think you'll find the 11-16mm F2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX Lens needs an in-camera motor like the D90 or D300 etc have.

Ooh, nice pic Graphicnatured.

I love the Tokina 11-16.

Shot with the Tokina:

Will the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX Lens autofocus with the D3100?

According to what I know, use, and all the other nikkonians use the fisheyes (from worst to best are as follows. Tamron !@#$, Nikon 12-24mm, Tokina 11-16mm, Nikon 8mm, Nikon 10-24mm, Nikon 14-24mm, Nikon 10.5mm...

I think it the real points are the 11-16 is amazing within the range...its super fast and good at low light with a continuous aperture of 2.8, but if you need more range just go with the Nikon 10-24. Both are reasonably priced.

These are all with my Nikkor 12-24

Newfie said:
I have the 12-24 and to be honest I'm not that impressed.

I've been dreaming of the Tokina for a long time. Just shy of moving up to FX and the 14-24, I don't think there's a better compliment to the D90.

Now it's time to pass my CPA exam so I can "reward" myself.

If you get a good copy of the Tokina 11-16, you'll be in awe with the lens:
it's sharp
it's wide
it's super contrasty
and it stops down amazingly

Sure, at 2.8, the corners are noticeably soft. . .but by 3.5, you're golden. . .so in essence, you're exceeding the performance of many WA lenses. . .

the zoom range is really not an issue for me, I use it as a WA prime that gives me the FF equivalent of 15-24mm. . .pairs well with my 17-55 Nikkor.

I have the 12-24 and to be honest I'm not that impressed.

MaxGreen said:
With it's tiny range I pretended mine was a prime with a focal length fine tune adjustment! It's a great lens and I sure wish there were something as good for my D700!

Haha that's how I use mine too! I love prime lenses so having the luxury of 11-16 is great...

I mostly shoot it at 11mm but sometimes you have to "adjust".. Most of the time I prefer using my 20mm rather than shooting at 16mm.. but when you have to get the shot fast, the 16mm is great too.. When you think about it.. it's a 16-24 equivalent, the range is quite good..

About the D700, There's the 14-24 you know.. it's huge but damn this lens is the best I've ever used I can't wait to switch to full frame to give this lens a try!

darko26 said:
im torn between Tokina 11-16 or Nikkor 12-24, which one of the best of this two lenses? i have d90 here.. thanks

Nikon's lens is easily matched by a good copy of the Tokina 12-24, but the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is fast glass and it is absolutely superior to the Nikon AND Tokina 12-24 lenses. Wide open it's sharp and has a major advantage in low light. Stop it down to anything close to F4 and it's sharper than the Nikon period.

The only drawback is that you lose the 17-24mm range and that IS important to plenty of people. But if you plan to work the wide end most of the time, the 11-16 is the best out there. With it's tiny range I pretended mine was a prime with a focal length fine tune adjustment! It's a great lens and I sure wish there were something as good for my D700!

Good luck!

I'm a happy owner of the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8

Considering my interest in low light, I often used it at f/2.8 and I'm very very satisfied of it.

Even at f/2.8 its reasonably sharp... if you stop it down a little it gets very very sharp.

The only thing I dislike about it is how the DOF may get weird when you shoot at f/2.8.. if you subject is close you can get a nice blurry background.. but if your subject is not too close, sometimes the background is just a bit blurred and I dislike that effect... However, it's not like you could avoid this problem in any way (at f/2.8) when I have enough light and I realize that I'm in such a situation, I just shoot at f/4, f/5.6 and I get the infinite DOF...

My Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is my favorite lens on my Nikon D300 (among my sigma 20mm f/1.8 (close second for its unique results), 70-200 2.8 VR (awesome versatile lens) and finally the classic 50 1.8

The only thing that would make me sell the 11-16 would be once I upgrade to FX (even if the tokina works at 15 and 16mm on FX!) I'll get a 14-24...

If you can get your hands on one, get the 11-16 f/2.8 It's an awesome lens!

Some says the range is short... yes this is true.. but you probably have other lenses anyway... Me, to fix this issue I bought the 20mm sigma.. I wanted a very fast 30mm equivalent anyway... I'm really happy to have that f/1.8 when I shoot at 20mm... I'll probably trade this lens for the 28mm f/1.8 once I upgrade to FX.. or maybe I can get my hands on a nikkor 28mm f/1.4.. damn they are expensive.

I tend to use my 10-24 at wider end too, but I also like the lens for street shooting. My favorite two focal lengths for street were always 28mm and 35mm (full frame), both of which are in the range of the 10-24. In tight quarters it's my favorite.

More Tokina 11-16mm

As PB PM said...I agree. The Tokina 12-24 is a great lens, and the only non-Nikor lens I own.

Here's one more @ 11mm in a pretty tough lighting environment:

I was using the table as my tripod, I'd normally crop it out.

I've got the Tokina and love it. For me, the zoom range isn't an issue, because I only ever shoot it at 11mm anyway. If I owned the nikon, I'd probably always have it set at 10mm.

For more "practical" (boring) shots, I've always got my 18-55 or my 35mm hanging out in my bag (and taking up very little space).

My only gripe with the Tokina is that it doesn't autofocus on my D40, which causes me to miss shots from time to time. No big deal as its hard to get out of focus on wide angles anyway, but you do have to be able to look through the viewfinder, which is why I blew this shot:

I didn't realize it until I got home and pulled it up on the big screen.

I have the Nikkor 12-24. It's the one I've done all of my wide angles with. I heard the Tokina one is better though. Of course I didn't hear this until I got the Nikkor LOL

I'm biased... Tokina 100%

It's less expensive, faster and lighter that the Nikkor.

I would even rank the Sigma 10-20 over the Nikkor.

I want a super wide, the extra length on the Nikkor in not needed.