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

Discussion in 'Nikon Lenses' started by jessyd, Mar 31, 2012.

  1. jessyd
    Offline

    jessyd New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0
    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. DorkSterr
    Offline

    DorkSterr Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Toronto
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +61 / 0
    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.
  3. cgipson1
    Offline

    cgipson1 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
    Messages:
    17,146
    Likes Received:
    4,356
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +4,356 / 0
    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. Compaq
    Offline

    Compaq Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes Received:
    574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Norway
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +574 / 0
    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.
  5. Tarazed
    Offline

    Tarazed New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    West Islip NY USA
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0
    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. austriker
    Offline

    austriker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Messages:
    436
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    NH
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0
    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!!
  7. vipgraphx
    Offline

    vipgraphx New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Some Where In the Desert
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +349 / 0
    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.
  8. ImNick
    Offline

    ImNick New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Michigan
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0
    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. matthewo
    Offline

    matthewo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    the south
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +601 / 0
    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. zamanakhan
    Offline

    zamanakhan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0
    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. matthewo
    Offline

    matthewo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    600
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    the south
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +601 / 0
    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...

  12. lemonart
    Offline

    lemonart New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0
    11-16 if you already have a midrange in your kit. 12-24 if you don't.

    Lem
  13. DiskoJoe
    Offline

    DiskoJoe New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,548
    Likes Received:
    525
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Houston
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +525 / 0
    I have friends that swear by the 11-16. And they too use it pretty much exclusively at 11mm.
  14. TheInformer
    Offline

    TheInformer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New York
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
  15. Bogs
    Offline

    Bogs New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    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....
  16. GregMen
    Offline

    GregMen New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gallery:
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    I owned both versions when I was shooting DX (Nikon D90) Found that both were very good! However, the 11-16 @ f/2.8 was definitely worth the price differential.

Share This Page