im torn between Tokina 11-16 or Nikkor 12-24, which one of the best of this two lenses? i have d90 here.. thanks
torn between Tokina 11-16 or Nikkor 12-24
(36 posts) (24 voices)-
12-24 if money is not the issue
best Nikon lens IMHOEDIT:
for DX body and if u really not 100% in to landscapes Tamron does a great jobPosted 3 years ago # -
The tokina 11-16mm is suppose to be the best wide angle dx lens out there. Distortion, speed, sharpness..its kinda has it all. I wanted one but I have my 10.5mm fish eye for now. its usually sold out here everywhere so hopefully you found a copy. I mean the 11-16 is f2.8 and the 12-24 is F4 right? I also think if you were getting a Nikon dx lens anyways you would want the 10-24mm
Posted 3 years ago # -
Nikon seems to be more of practical range. than again if you need the speed and ultra wide end, go for the Tokina
Posted 3 years ago # -
I've been very happy with the 10-24. I may be very lucky with my copy, but I consider it very sharp, plus the zoom range is much better than the alternatives.
this was shot at f3.5, 1/8 sec. 10mm.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Posted 3 years ago #
-
the reviews say the tokina 11-16 is great. Its one of those new tokinas that have come out since the colaboration with the pentax lens engineers. (the result of the colaboration are the highly regarded 12-24, 50-135, 16-50). I have the nikkor 12-24 its nice and solid I think my grand sons may be using it in 30 years time. Or building a home with it... ;-)
cant go wrong with either. I dont use my 12-24 much.. I am just not a wide angle guy.(I got it for my wife's real estate business) for me if I were to be buying now I would get the 10-24. or sigma 10-20. 10mm is a good focal length for DX.( If you stand in the corner of a room you can get the whole room as its angle of view is just a bit over 90 degrees)
Posted 3 years ago # -
nau - haven't You confused 12-24 with 14-24? I didn't heard so great stuff about 12-24.
darko26 - have You considered sigma 10-20, I got this one and I'm more than pleased with the results, not to mention the fact it's wider, and it's probably one of the best Sigma lenses on the market.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, the Tokina 12-24mm is better than the Nikkor, and cheaper. Lets put it this way, the Tokina 12-24mm F4 is the only non-Nikon lens I've got.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I actually had both at one very brief time, and I actually found the 11-16mm to be sharper, stops down nicely and it really dazzles you at 2.8. You get nice star shapes at night because of its 13 elements and its wonderful for waterfalls I found at F16-22. However, the main problem I had with it was it felt like owning a wide angle prime. The 6 focal lengths are not enough but I understand because its a 2.8 lens. The Nikon is great also but pricey. It gives you double the range. Have you given any thought to the Sigma 10-20mm or new Nikon 10-24 3.5? Normally I'd say skip on third party lenses but the 11-16 Tokina, 10-20 Sigma and the "bigma" lenses are a few examples that break this notion.
By the way, I went full frame a few months ago so I have the 14-24mm beast now..
Posted 3 years ago # -
tokina 12-24 is great definately cheaper but its almost as good as the nikkor ;-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
As PB PM said...I agree. The Tokina 12-24 is a great lens, and the only non-Nikor lens I own.
Posted 3 years ago # -
More Tokina 11-16mm
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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.. thanksNikon'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!
Posted 3 years ago # -
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!
Posted 3 years ago # -
I have the 12-24 and to be honest I'm not that impressed.
Posted 3 years ago # -
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 amazinglySure, 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.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Posted 3 years ago #
-
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.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
