racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

hello fellow hogs, although I am looking to get by summers end Tokina's 11-20, I am just curious on the pros thoughts of the two different ones. (pros/cons). thank you all in advance. looking forward to replies.

IBM

If the price is about equal I would go for the 11-16 , if it's for a crop sensor , and a 11-20 if for a full frame , but if it works on either with no
Hang ups on both then get the 11-16 mm it makes more sense to get as wide as possible if you can ,

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

The shortcoming of the Tokina 11-16 was always it's lack of range compared to competitors products. The 11-20 pretty much fixed that. It's a very good lens at $599, and you can often find it for $50 less.

Please ignore comments from posters who obviously have no idea what these lenses are, they can't help themselves it seems.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

thanks MT, and yes my local camera store in So Calif. (or the chain of them) is offering about $550.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

I have the 11-20mm and it is for a DX camera. It's an exceptional lens for the price. The 11-20 is their newer lens and that extra 4mm makes a big difference.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

thanks Wayne, and yes its for my D3300-dx. :-)

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

Just noticed that the 11-20 is $459 at Amazon.

teranz

The $459 appears to be used, but they've got them new for $480.

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

Your right, didn't see that. $480 is still a great price for this lens. I paid $559 with no complaints.

edfgrf1951 Loc: Chatsworth Ga.

You might want to look at the new Tamron 10-24 has real good reviews.

IBM

Has any checked out the Sigma 10-20mm it was rated better than the ones getting all the press here. After Thom hogan tested it and
Liked it so much he put his Nikon wide angle in storage , that cost about twice as much as the Sigma, and uses the Sigma, on that note
I bought one for $500 and change , that was around 4or 5 years ago .

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Tokina's 11-16mm is the old model that was been superseded by the 11-20mm f/2.8 about a year ago. (Note: neither is a full frame lens, contrary to previous response... tho they both will work in a ver limited way on FF cameras).

The 11-16mm is a great lens, but is rather prone to flare. I know folks who simply couldn't use it and ended up replacing it with another lens (such as the Toki 12-24/4). It's 11-16mm range of focal lengths is the least of any ultrawide zoom.

I haven't used, so can't say for certain, but perhaps the new 11-20mm has been improved and controls flare better. If the price were the same (which it likely isn't), and the new lens were merely equal in image qualities, I'd probably still go with it because of the extra zoom range and fact that if ever needed a newer lens will likely be serviceable for more years in the future, than an older model will.

One fairly minor downside to the newer lens, it uses an 82mm filter (instead of 77mm, which are often quite a bit less expensive).

Also, if you are buying to use on a Nikon, be aware that there were two versions of the 11-16mm. The original one, in Nikon mount, doesn't have a built-in focusing motor. It's like an AF "D" Nikkor, cannot autofocus on Nikon D3000-series and D5000-series cameras. Only on D7000-series and higher models. The 11-16mm II in Nikon mount does have a built-in motor (like AF-S lenses) and can autofocus on all recent Nikon camera models. The "II" usually costs a bit more than the original. (There was no difference in the lens for other mounts, such as Canon.)

The newer 11-20mm is only in one version, has built-in focusing motor, so Nikon shooters don't need to worry.

Question... Do you really need an f/2.8 ultrawide? For the vast majority of us, it's not really necessary. An f/3.5 or f/4 lens... or even a variable aperture... is fine because a lot of wide angle work is done stopped down to a middle aperture anyway. An f/2.8 wide angle zoom won't blur down backgrounds either, the way a similarly fast telephoto will. Sure, for astrophotography and perhaps photojournalism, the f/2.8 might be helpful at times. But for most other uses it offers little or no benefit. It just makes for a bigger, heavier, more expensive lens. For example, Tokina's older 12-24mm f/4 and current 12-28mm f/4 are also excellent lenses... a bit smaller and less expensive (the older 12-24mm was made in two versions, too... same situation as above, for Nikon shooters).

There are lots of other very good ultrawides from Sigma and most of the OEM camera manufacturers. Nikon's own two are way, way overpriced... while Canon offers the most bargain-priced, if a bit plasticky 10-18mm along with an older, somewhat better built, mid-priced model. There are fewer choices for use on Pentax (because Tokina makes a lot of their lenses, so they probably have an agreement not to make any competing Toki to fit Pentax). Tamron is purportedly about to introduce a new one with VC (the only stabilized ultrawide right now is the Canon bargain lens). If some of the other recent Tamron introductions are any guide, it might be a very nice lens.

I have not compared some of the newer lenses... But I did test as many as I could get my hands on some years ago before purchasing one to use on my Canon APS-C cameras. In order of overall performance, build and image quality, from best to worst, I felt:

#1 Canon 10-22mm USM (best image quality, flare resistance, but was one of the priciest ones, at the time)
#2 a tie between
- Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (sharpest and top quality build, but prone to flare, more expensive and a very narrow range of focal lengths)
- Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (very high image quality, top quality build, good flare control)
#3 Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (good build, one of lowest priced at the time, decent image quality though not as good as above)
#4 Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 (good build, decent IQ, but the largest, heaviest and one of the most expensive at the time... now selling heavily discounted)
#5 Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 (most plasticky build, decent IQ at 10mm but soft at 24mm... widest range, one of the most affordable at the time)

I ended up buying the Tokina 12-24mm and have been happy using it. A few years ago I got a good deal on a used Canon 10-22mm and now use it too.

I haven't ever personally compared:

Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 or 12-28mm f/4.
Tokina 10-17mm (it's actually a fisheye, with heavy distortions, especially at the widest settings)
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 (widest available non-fisheye, heavy distortions tho, and rather pricey... cannot fit a standard filter)
Sigma 12-24mm (actually a full frame lens... so it's big, heavy, and pretty expensive, can't use standard filters... has now been superseded by even more expensive "Art" version)
Canon 11-24mm f/4L (also a full frame lens... ultra expensive, big, heavy and can't use standard filters)
Canon 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 (Under $300 brand new and IQ that's among the best! Also the lightest and most compact UWA of all. Plus image stabilization! But, I'd be afraid of breaking a plasticky lens like this... though it might be fine for someone using it less frequently.)

Of course, I've never personally spent much time with any of the other OEM brand lenses.

IBM

Thom Hogan. SIGMA 10-20 F/4--5.6 DC EX HSM

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

B&H has the Sigma 10-20mm for $449. I have one of them and quite "like it", LoL

IBM