racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

Hello fellow hogs, here is my problem and need help, your thoughts (and links I know I'll get), your opinions. Heard a short time ago Tokina's new 11-20mm was better than Nikon's old 10-24mm. Both DX. Now two things have happened while saving up for the Tokina lens. Nikon has a new 10-20mm (dx) and Tokina's lens is going up. (recently at my local cam store from $550 to 640). can anyone help with anything on this. I do like the new Nikon lens price, lol $310. Thank you all in advance. (still an amateur !) use of lens doesn't matter, whether fun or serious. camera=D3300. Rich

mrpentaxk5ii

Any time you see a price for a DX ultra wide lens for around 300+ dollars, you might like the price, but you get what you pay for....Cheap is cheap.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

just asking: so Nikons new dx $310(10-20) isn't that much better then the old dx $800(10-24) ?? still go w/ the Tokina at $500 or $600.

mrpentaxk5ii

You should expect to pay around 500-600 dollars for a good wide lense, the new lense in the 300 dollar range are not going to have the better glass and the build will not be as good. a few years I bought my 12-24mm F4 from B&H, made by Pentaxit cost me about 750 at the time. I use it often. Here are some photos from Maine photo shoot

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

I got an older Tokina 11-16 a couple of months ago on ebay for 370 and am glad I did. A great high quality lens.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Tokina makes very good wide angle lenses, and Ken Rockwell loves them. I had the 11-16mm and then got the 16-28mm for my FX body.

Look for reviews of the lenses and make your choice based on the reviews and the price. Paying twice the price might get you a tiny increase in performance.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Currently, there are no independent test results on the Nikon. But it is being produced at the new plant which, from my understanding, sets new standards for quality control. I would, as a long time Nikon guy, be tempted to go with the Nikon. It would not be a major expense, the lens would not get major use as it is a special lens, and, you would be one of the first to own it and then you could rule the web site with your opinion on the newest Nikon lens. How about that.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I got the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 when I wanted an UWA for my DX bodies. I relied on Thom Hogan's review of it. ( http://www.bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm ). Hasn't let me down & it will work with your camera as well since it has a built in focus motor. Here's a shot ( cropped a bit) that I took in Amelia Island Florida with it...

St. Peter's Episcopal Church by Scott, on Flickr

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I do not say this too often, NICE SHOT.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Thanks !!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The new $300 Nikkor 10-20mm was just announced and isn't in stores yet... so you aren't going to get much feedback and won't find in-depth reviews of it.

I have no doubt that the new Nikkor AF-P 10-20mm VR is a competitive response to Canon's EF-S 10-18mm IS STM, which really upset the ultrawide market when Canon introduced it in mid-2014. That Canon seemed to stun every other manufacturer with it's high image quality, more compact size, lighter weight... and the first UWA to have image stabilization.... all for $300 (now more typically $270), a price roughly 40% or more less than anyone elses' UWA lens. It's a bit plasticky, but fine for someone who has occasional need for an UWA. Canon continues to offer their older, but still excellent EF-S 10-22mm USM (2004) that has somewhat higher build quality, slightly faster aperture (f/3.5 vs f/4.5), higher performance USM autofocus drive... and a $600 price tag.

All manufacturers seemed surprised by and appear to have responded to Canon's inexpensive 10-18mm...

We'll have to wait and see reviews of the new $309 Nikkor. I suspect it will be rather plasticky, like the Canon. The older model Nikkor AF-S 10-24mm DX and AF-S 12-24mm DX STILL cost $900 and $1150, respectively, making them just about the most expensive UWAs from any manufacturer... they must be made of "unobtanium" or something. Tamron, Sigma and Tokina all have long been offering alternatives that cost between $500 and $600... some reduced below that now, since the introduction of the low-priced Canon lens. Heck, even Canon's older model was 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the Nikon lenses (and reportedly the Canon has better IQ).

Since the Canon announcement, Sigma lowered their prices on existing models significantly. They sold completely out of their lower cost 10-20mm with variable f/4.5-5.6 aperture... But still offer their much bigger, heavier, 10-20mm f/3.5 "DC" HSM ($450 currently... after $200 discount which now seems permanent... formerly it was one of the more expensive UWA lenses). Sigma still commands a high price for the "widest of the wide"... their 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM sells for $700. (No other UWA is as wide, but it cannot use standard screw-in filters due to strongly protruding, convex front element.)

Tamron recently revised their 10-24mm f/4.5-5.6 Di II, upgrading focus drive and overall build quality, adding "VC" image stabilization, and improving image quality... But are not charging a higher price for it than the previous version (both sell for $500), perhaps partly in response to the Canon lens.

Tokina has long offered some of the best built UWAs... Theirs look and feel a lot like Canon L-series lenses. Their current AT-X Pro 11-20mm DX is the only f/2.8 UWA offered... still bringing a fairly high price: $564 currently, after a $75 mail-in rebate. But they also offer an AT-X Pro 12-28mm f/4 DX for a bit less: $449 currently in the Nikon version. (Canon version of it is currently offered for $100 less.... maybe due to soft sales because of Canon's low priced 10-18mm?)

Honestly... do you really need f/2.8 on this lens? Most UWA uses actually don't require it. With wide lenses, most of us are stopping them down for great depth of field the vast majority of the time... not using them wide open. Wide focal lengths like these also are pretty easily hand held at relatively slow shutter speeds (stabilization isn't all that necessary, though it's always welcome). The f/4 Tokina costs $115 less than their own f/2.8 lens ($190 less when there's no rebate offer). Sure, it's slightly less wide.... 12mm versus 11mm. Just take one step backward! The 12-28mm f/4 is also slightly smaller and lighter weight. For example, it uses a 77mm filter while the 11-20mm f/2.8 lens requires an 82mm (so does the Sigma 10-20mm). Both the current Tokina have similar high quality build. They use a micro motor focus drive, but that's no problem with ultrawide lenses that only need to move their focus elements a very short distance. Out in the real world with this type of lens, you won't notice much or any improvement in speed with stepper motor or ultrasonic focus drive lenses, compared to micro motor. The slower focus speeds of micro motor drive are much more of a concern with mid-range and telephoto focal lengths. Both the 11-20mm and 12-28mm Tokina saw some nice improvements in image quality, too... although the earlier models (11-16mm and 12-24mm) were actually pretty darned good. The 11-20mm saw A LOT of improvement in flare resistance, which was a common issue with the 11-16mm lens it superseded.

All the Tokina use a unique "focus clutch" mechanism to enable/disable autofocus. The manual focus ring slides forward and backward to switch between AF and manual focus. In the AF setting, turning the focus ring doesn't do anything... it's disengaged and merely spins until you shift it to the manual focus position. This means there's no "overriding" autofocus, without first shifting the lens into the MF setting. Again, it's a pretty minor thing out in the real world and many users might not even notice.

If you consider and shop for Tokina.... also be aware there are still copies of the earlier 11-16mm f/2.8 and 12-24mm f/4 available new.... and in Nikon mount there were two versions of each of these lenses. The original versions were "motorless" lenses that cost less, but can only autofocus on D7200 and D500 models.... They'd be manual-focus-only on D5000 and D3000 series cameras. In Nikon mount, the slightly higher priced "II" versions of these earlier lenses have a built-in motor to be able to autofocus on all Nikon. While there were also original and II versions in Canon and Sony mount, too, there's no significant difference between them. The latest 11-20mm and 12-28mm are only offered with built-in motor, so can AF on all Nikon.

I've used one of the original 12-24mm Tokina on my Canon cameras for many years and it's an excellent lens. Before buying that lens, I tried out it and all the other contemporary lenses I could. I liked the image quality, build and "feel" of the Tokina better than any of the Sigma or Tamron. And at that time it was selling for 1/3 less than the Canon 10-22mm (which I've since acquired and use too). I never felt the need for the f/2.8 at all, also never had any "issues" with the micro motor focus drive or Tokina's unusual AF/MF "clutch". I haven't used them but imagine the latest versions are the same, only better. All reports and reviews I've seen suggest they are.

Holding out for the new Nikkor might be a good idea. It's a bit risky, since no one has seen and used it, can't say if it will be good or not. Likely it'll be plasticky! It appears to use a "polycarbonate" bayonet mount, like other entry-level lenses (from both Canon and Nikon). I see it's going to be an AF-P "stepper motor" type lens... and that it has VR. Other AF-P with VR have no means of switching stabilization off and on... it's just on all the time. Don't know if that's good or bad or doesn't matter at all. Like the Canon, it appears to be slightly more compact than other UWA, for example using a 72mm filter where most of them use 77mm and a few require 82mm (the Canon 10-18mm uses 67mm... the older 10-22mm uses 77mm).

But with a second UWA around the $300 price, I expect to see other manufacturers eventually need to respond with lower prices, the way they have with their Canon mount versions. So, even if you don't end up buying the Nikkor, it should lead to lower prices on other brands too!

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

thanks and nice shots.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

I have an old 75-200 tokina I still have it with my Nikon 35mm- EM.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

thanks and nice shots.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

will do thanks Jerry.