Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    No longer a newbie, moving up!
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    36
    My Gallery
    (0)
    Liked
    1 times

    Tokina 12-24 f/4 or 11-16 f/2.8 ?

    I'm having a hard time to chose for my landscape lens please help!!! For nikon d7000

    Witch one would you choose ?

    Thanks in advance!!



  2. #2
    I spend too much of my life on TPF!
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    829
    My Gallery
    (22)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    61 times
    11-16 f/2.8. You wont regret that, its 2.8 you can achieve more with much less light. And people say it as sharp as the 14-24mm f2.8.
    Nikon D4 || Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 || Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 || Nikon 105mm f/2.8 || Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 || Sigma 50-500mm f4.5-6.3 OS || Gitzo GT1542T + Gitzo GH1780QR || Manfrotto 055XPROB + Manfrotto 498RC4 || Nikon SB700 Speedlight + Lightsphere II Cloud || Kenko Extention Tube Set

    Add me!


  3. #3
    TPF Junkie!
    TPF Supporter

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    17,146
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    4383 times
    The Nikon 10-24 is a good alternative (and it IS a Nikon). Used the pricing is similar. IMO, focus speed and accuracy is better on the Nikon than any third party lens that has to reverse engineer the control system

  4. #4
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,308
    My Gallery
    (2)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    581 times
    I bought the 12-24/4 (mk 1) last year. I've taken many shots with it. It's very nicely built. I then exchanged it to the 11-16/2.8 due to the extra stop of light. Wanting more light in taking pictures of stars is what I base that argument on.

    Focus speed? I wouldn't care less about that in this lens. I use it for landscapes, most often on tripod. I focus manually. I feel better by focusing manually on live view
    It makes a little dentist-ish sound. I don't like the sound, but I don't really care. I don't listen to it very often.

    The 12-24 that I had flared pretty easily. I haven't had the time to test the 11-16 yet, but I suspect it will be better. It's sharpness is shown on the internet in various lab tests. Some might feel limited by the short focal range, and I have a few times, but it's not a major crisis. One can always crop a little, and most have a kit lens if they need it.
    Hopefully posted by Anders

  5. #5
    No longer a newbie, moving up!
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Islip NY USA
    Posts
    63
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    2 times
    I hate to hijack a thread, but, maybe it will help the OP. I have the following lens 35 1.8, 50 1.8, 105 2.8 and the 80-200 2.8. I would like to get something on the wide side. So I'm considering the Tokina 12-24 and the 11-16. I will likely use the lens for a lot of different wide angle shots, not just landscapes. Will the greater range of the 12-24 be more helpful at the expense of a stop? Does anyone think a normal fast zoom would prove a better move, or are my primes adequate?

  6. #6
    I spend too much of my life on TPF!
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    436
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    1 times
    I hate hijack the hijacked thread but... (but I couldn't resist).. I am in a similar situation; I have a 18-55 and 80-200 f/2.8 (and am on a search for a 35mm f/1.8 after selling my 50mm f/1.8) and looking for either of the 2 lenses for discussion. Also prevalent to my case is an impending trip/cruise to alaska in mid may with my family (think that will be a whole separate post). Either way I thought Id chime in and keep my ears open for some wide vs wide advice.. Thanks!!
    My Quiver:
    D700,
    Nikkor AF-S ED 80-200mm f/2.8D, Nikon 50mm f/1.4D
    D300, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (selling), Nikkor 16-85mm VR (selling), Old Vivitar Strobe , Tripod
    Canon (gross, I know) Professional Gadget Bag 1EG

    http://dlindahlphotos.com/

    "Life is harsh, short and brutish."
    ~Thomas Hobbes

    C&C my flickr por favor!

  7. #7
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Some Where In the Desert
    Posts
    2,206
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    355 times
    I chose the Tokina 12-24 over the 11-16 because of the range. I don't shoot in really low light situations and very much and when I have the 12-24 had no problem focusing. Simple trick to shoot stars without worring about focusing, is set to manual and set the focus to the middle of the infinity sign and you have nothing to worry about.. I have shot in dark churches with very minimal light. I find it more useful to have more range than a little more width its only 1mm wider but, 8mm longer and I have taken use of that range.

    I may be selling my 12-24 if I end up moving up to full frame other wise I would not think about selling it..I have not regretted buying it.
    HTERS MAKE ME FAMOUS


  8. #8
    Been spending a lot of time on here!
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    214
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    16 times
    Not trying to steal your thread but I'm selling my 10-24mm because I recently moved to full frame. I really enjoy the lens and I think it is the sharpest lens I own. Also, If you are shooting landscapes with the lens, f/2.8 won't be a huge deal because you will most likely want to be using smaller apertures.

  9. #9
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    the south
    Posts
    1,423
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    592 times
    its less because its a f2.8 and more because its just a sharper lens then the 12-24 tokina. i hardly ever use the 11-16 at f2.8 dfa s little reason to have shallow DOF on a wideangle.

  10. #10
    I spend too much of my life on TPF!
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    473
    My Gallery
    (0)
    Liked
    29 times
    This is a choice ur going to have to make yourself, basically the 12-24 can act as a walk around lens while the 11-16 would be more specialized. I have no problem shooting someone with a distance at 24mm but at 16 the same person would look as if they have humongous shoulders or massive noses, 24mm isn't too bad. This means u can keep the 12-24 on while going in to a building, trying to get a sweet sunset and even when trying to snap a pic of your girlfriend. If you try that with a 11-16 she'll complain she looks fat. I would love to hav the 11-16 I can definately see myself using it at 2,8 indoors especially in churches. My 10-20 is AWEFUL wide open but at f8 it's not bad and I don't want to upgrade as I would rather save for FF and get a 16-35 instead.

  11. #11
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    the south
    Posts
    1,423
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    592 times
    i have to agree, the 11-16 is strickly a wide angle lens, it does give that wide angle look so wouldnt be the best to use on a single person, but very good for group shots in a confinded space. it is a 11-16 zoom, but think of it more as a prime because the zoom isnt really going to do much more then you moving yourself a few steps. when i use mine its at 11mm pretty much all the time. like with most wide angle lens, i really dont use it much, but its very important to have because you can always walk if the situations allows to get closer with other lenses, but you can never get farther away if you dont have a wide angle and backed up against a wall, or in a confinded space...

    Quote Originally Posted by zamanakhan View Post
    This is a choice ur going to have to make yourself, basically the 12-24 can act as a walk around lens while the 11-16 would be more specialized. I have no problem shooting someone with a distance at 24mm but at 16 the same person would look as if they have humongous shoulders or massive noses, 24mm isn't too bad. This means u can keep the 12-24 on while going in to a building, trying to get a sweet sunset and even when trying to snap a pic of your girlfriend. If you try that with a 11-16 she'll complain she looks fat. I would love to hav the 11-16 I can definately see myself using it at 2,8 indoors especially in churches. My 10-20 is AWEFUL wide open but at f8 it's not bad and I don't want to upgrade as I would rather save for FF and get a 16-35 instead.

  12. #12
    Been spending a lot of time on here!
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    139
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    8 times
    11-16 if you already have a midrange in your kit. 12-24 if you don't.

    Lem

  13. #13
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    4,548
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    526 times
    I have friends that swear by the 11-16. And they too use it pretty much exclusively at 11mm.
    Sony A580 and Sony A200 DSLR + grip
    Sigma 10-20 f3.5; Sigma 17-50mm f2.8; Sigma: 70-210mmF2.8 APO;
    Minolta 50mm F1.7
    Sony HVL-42AM Flash

    My Flickr

  14. #14
    No longer a newbie, moving up!
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    42
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    The 11-16 is by far one of the best wide angles for the DX cropped sensors.. If you can find em in stock now, I had to wait forever to find one.. Amazon has them right meow


    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...SIN=B0014Z5XMK

  15. #15
    No longer a newbie, moving up!
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    36
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    i am going for the 11-16 since i take a lot of photos at night and indoors. there is a lot of photos taken with with lens on flickr. the pics look sharp and people in the photos don't seem that distorted when the photos are shot properly.

    also, this guy seems to really prefer the tokina over Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 AF-S DX
    Tokina 11-16mm

    autofocus-wise, how much faster and quieter is nikkor going to be? (this is a rhetorical question really)

    factor in a roughly $300 difference in price and we have a winner in my books....

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Tokina 10-17
    By rupe.mac in forum Buy and Sell
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-2011, 09:25 PM
  2. WTB Tokina 10-17
    By Bluemax in forum Buy and Sell
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-29-2011, 11:29 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-30-2010, 11:10 AM
  4. Tokina's new 11-16 f2.8
    By Antithesis in forum Photography Equipment & Products
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-31-2008, 12:10 AM
  5. Tokina 12-24 f/4 AT-X :)
    By Antithesis in forum Photography Equipment & Products
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-15-2008, 09:56 PM

Search tags for this page

tokina 11 16 vs tokina 12 24
,
tokina 11-16 or 12-24
,

tokina 11-16 vs 12-24

,

tokina 11-16 vs tokina 12-24

,
tokina 11-16mm vs tokina 12-24mm
,

tokina 12-24 vs 11-16

,

tokina 12-24 vs tokina 11-16

,
tokina 12-28 vs 11-16
Click on a term to search for related topics.