Tokina Royal 12-24 vs 11-16

[dEARlEADER]

Anyone going through this?

I need an ultrawide to complete my little kit and can't decide which of these two to go with.....

11-16 is f2.8 but does this matter? aren't most ultra wides taken at sharp apertures like F9??

The 12-24 is cheaper and available to me NOW!!

The 11-16 has superior sharpness..... but not in stores yet(canada)...

The 12-24 would compliment the lousy wide end of my 18-200

The 11-16 costs more..... but... not that much more....


uhhhhhhh....... i dunnnnnnoooo...... help me?

 

[Antithesis]

Super-wides have a very broad depth of field. It's still there, but a 85mm at F4 is going to have a much slimmer depth of field than a 12-24, 12mm @ F4. That being said, I used my Tokina 12-24 at F4 very often, it works well with distant subjects and remained very sharp.

The 11-16 is aimed more at photojournalists who might need an extra stop of light, or people who want to play with DOF in a wide-angle. Also, the extra mm at the wide end actual does more than you think. It'll be ~8-9% wider than a 12mm, which is something to think about.

I'd gauge your purchase on those criteria. If you need a little extra wideness and an extra stop, then the 2.8 will be for you. Keep in mind you can handhold at 12mm safely at around 1/15th, and I've handheld one down to 1/4 and gotten a very sharp image. I do have steady hands though.

 

[Rhubarb]

I currently own and use the Tokina 12-24mm, and it is one of my favourite lenses. That said when I bought it there was no such thing as the 11-16mm and the real toss up for me was between the 12-24mm and the Sigma 10-20mm.

I wish the 11-16mm was around then because it would have made my decision easier and I probably would have got it.

Now I am pretty much going through what you're are, because I am considering selling the 12-24mm to get the 11-16mm (I could just have both but that seems a tad silly to me).

The two obvious things about the 11-16 is that it is wider and as Antithesis mentioned 1mm at the wide end makes a big difference to the field of view and its sharper (it’s the sharpest lens in its category). And I really like both of these attributes in a SWA lens.

However the thing that I have really came to appreciate about the 12-24mm is the long end. It makes the lens a lot more versatile particularly for me, as I seem to take the majority of my shots between 17-24mm on a normal zoom. So with the 12-24mm it allows me to get the shots I usually take with a normal zoom as well as the ability to go super wide.

That said you buy these lenses so you can go wide, and with 11-16mm being wider and exceptionally sharp and with a trek through the Himalayas coming up later this year I will probably end up getting it and off loading the 12-24mm.

So I guess it comes down to if the extra zoom range is important to you (as mentioned I think it makes the lens very versatile, to the point that you can use it as a wide walk around lens) or whether you hold wider and sharper in higher regard.

 

[usayit]

Just my two cents....

Do any of the lenses have DOF markings on the barrel????

I have a 12mm lens that I shoot often which requires you to zone focus. It is a load of fun to shoot from the hip and the results are wonderful. As already stated, ultra-wides have a very broad DOF.

For me, DOF markings on a wide angle lens is an absolute must (for prefocusing and setting hyperfocal).

 

[JimmyO]

Well
All i have to add is that i have the sigma 10-20mm. Its a great lens. ITs pretty slow but im able to work around that.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Great advice on both lenses....

so great in fact I am no further along...

I lost an ebay bid for the 12-24 last night... so maybe that's fate for the 11-16...

but maybe not.... the distortion @ 18mm on my 18-200 is pretty bad... the 12-24 would certainly help me with that aspect.... then again if I used the 11-16 tight @ 16mm it's only a 2mm difference that I'm missing... I could always crop the excess... and the sharpness on the 11-16 is superior...

one thing I'm a little worried about is I see initial reviews on lenses and the pro's love them (they seem to get great copies)... then when the lens goes mass production people start complaining about soft copies/poor quality etc..

I really haven't read anything bad about the 12-24 regarding these types of issues.. maybe this speaks to the specific lens or maybe this speaks to the build quality of tokina..... so I'm a little worried about how the 11-16 will unfold....

 

[Antithesis]

There will be significant distortion around the edges of any wide angle, and they tend to bend some lines in certain areas of the image. Don't plan on getting a distortion free image when going that wide unless you want to drop the money on a rectilinear (which will still stretch things out on the edges).

Buy from a camera store and you don't have to worry about getting a poor copy or not. You can just swap it for another.

Some of my best images are from a wide-angle though. When you start adding foreground interest to your landscapes and just about everything else, you can really start to appreciate a super-wide. Bah, I'm going to need to get one again, I'm starting to miss mine

 

[dEARlEADER]

There will be significant distortion around the edges of any wide angle, and they tend to bend some lines in certain areas of the image. Don't plan on getting a distortion free image when going that wide unless you want to drop the money on a rectilinear (which will still stretch things out on the edges).

Buy from a camera store and you don't have to worry about getting a poor copy or not. You can just swap it for another.

Some of my best images are from a wide-angle though. When you start adding foreground interest to your landscapes and just about everything else, you can really start to appreciate a super-wide. Bah, I'm going to need to get one again, I'm starting to miss mine

Yes ... but think this way.... the barrel distortion is huge on my Nikkor 18-200 from 18mm till 24mm.. and the 12-24 extended from 18-24 only has mild pincushion.... this tells me maybe I should get the 12-24...

but the 11-16 is a better lens and only costs $100 more... and goes wider.. this is why I'm buying a wide lens....

incidently the distortion on the 11-16 all through the focal is supposed to be nominal.... apparently because the zoom range is so small.....

i would most likely use the wide lens wide open about 90% of the time...

 

[dEARlEADER]

There will be significant distortion around the edges of any wide angle, and they tend to bend some lines in certain areas of the image. Don't plan on getting a distortion free image when going that wide unless you want to drop the money on a rectilinear (which will still stretch things out on the edges).

Buy from a camera store and you don't have to worry about getting a poor copy or not. You can just swap it for another.

Some of my best images are from a wide-angle though. When you start adding foreground interest to your landscapes and just about everything else, you can really start to appreciate a super-wide. Bah, I'm going to need to get one again, I'm starting to miss mine

Just out of curiousity... why did you sell your wide lens?? Did you not use it enough??

 

[Rhubarb]

Yes ... but think this way.... the barrel distortion is huge on my Nikkor 18-200 from 18mm till 24mm.. and the 12-24 extended from 18-24 only has mild pincushion.... this tells me maybe I should get the 12-24...

but the 11-16 is a better lens and only costs $100 more... and goes wider.. this is why I'm buying a wide lens....

incidently the distortion on the 11-16 all through the focal is supposed to be nominal.... apparently because the zoom range is so small.....

i would most likely use the wide lens wide open about 90% of the time...

Also the distortion with the 12-24mm is quite uniform so it is straight forward to correct in PP. I would expect the same from the 11-16mm.

 

[Mav]

I just picked up the Tokina 11-16/2.8 recently and love it. Time will tell whether I'll hold on to it or not. The build quality is amazing, the photos are sharp, and it's an f/2.8. Will just need to see how I end up using it. The 16mm long end is limiting. The 12-24 lenses will let you get out to an almost normal view which makes them a bit more versatile, but they're not as wide and only f/4. I like to do a lot of transitional or available light photography where the f/2.8 speed becomes essential. Based on how I end up using it, I may or may not end up swapping with someone who has a 12-24 and wants the 11-16. I'll probably hold on to the 11-16 though, because I have two bodies and can just stick another lens on the other body. The 10 vs 11 vs 12mm wideness isn't as critical to me since if I really want to go wide I have the 10.5mm DX fisheye for Nikon which is far wider than any of these.

 

[dEARlEADER]

I just picked up the Tokina 11-16/2.8 recently and love it. Time will tell whether I'll hold on to it or not. The build quality is amazing, the photos are sharp, and it's an f/2.8. Will just need to see how I end up using it. The 16mm long end is limiting. The 12-24 lenses will let you get out to an almost normal view which makes them a bit more versatile, but they're not as wide and only f/4. I like to do a lot of transitional or available light photography where the f/2.8 speed becomes essential. Based on how I end up using it, I may or may not end up swapping with someone who has a 12-24 and wants the 11-16. I'll probably hold on to the 11-16 though, because I have two bodies and can just stick another lens on the other body. The 10 vs 11 vs 12mm wideness isn't as critical to me since if I really want to go wide I have the 10.5mm DX fisheye for Nikon which is far wider than any of these.

yeah well keep me in mind Mav.... I ended up buying the 12-24 from someone off the forum... figured I'd wait on the 11-16 until the hype settles down and some used ones hit the market.... I pretty much plan on keeping this lens @ f9 for scapes and buildings... I don't mind using pods... I don't think the extra stop is gonna kill me unless I find some indoor uses for this lens...

that said... I still want the 11-16... Ken Rockwells review showing corner detail comparisons against the nikkor pretty much sold me.... the 11-16 is wicked sharp... we'll see what happens in mass production...

your a lucky man to have that weapon...

 

[Mav]

Here's one at 11mm and f/9

11mm, 1/10s, f/2.8, iso1600

 

[LWW]

There will be significant distortion around the edges of any wide angle, and they tend to bend some lines in certain areas of the image. Don't plan on getting a distortion free image when going that wide unless you want to drop the money on a rectilinear (which will still stretch things out on the edges).

If you have Photoshop CS2 then you can use the lens distortion filter and correct things without the need for a rectilinear lens.

LWW

 

[icassell]

I have the Sigma 10-20 and find I usually use it at the ultrawide end. There is a big difference on a crop-sensor camera between 10 and 12. I love the 10-20 -- you might consider that one as well.