Tokina 11-20 mm 2.8. Vs Nikon 10-24 mm 3.5
Jul 9, 2016 00:42:11 #
In the market for a wide angle lense for a Nikon D 5500. I realize that the Nikon 10-24 is sharper. Am I giving up a lot with the Tokina 2.8 aperature vs the Nikon 3.5. Any advice please.
Jul 10, 2016 06:07:01 #
linelink wrote:
In the market for a wide angle lense for a Nikon D 5500. I realize that the Nikon 10-24 is sharper. Am I giving up a lot with the Tokina 2.8 aperature vs the Nikon 3.5. Any advice please.
I'd look for comparisons with the help of Google.
https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
http://www.lenscore.org/
Jul 10, 2016 09:45:38 #
Check lenstip.com, which has tests of both. Both have strengths and weaknesses. For outdoor work you won't miss f2.8, but that can be handy indoors and in low light. Another lens that is my personal favorite is the Sigma 8-16, which is optically quite good and gives you a significantly wider FOV at the widest setting.
Jul 10, 2016 10:29:42 #
I just got mine last week and so far really looks good. I need to get out and shoot a little more before I can give a reasonable assessment. As was stated above by kymarto I probably won't be using f2.8 that much outside but for indoor work and shooting homes for real estate it's a plus.
Jul 10, 2016 12:03:30 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
No, the Nikkor is not especially sharper than the Tokina. So you realize wrong.
In fact, virtually all lenses of this type are quite sharp. More likely are problems with flare and the way the lenses handle strong light sources.
The earlier Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 was quite prone to flare... but the 11-20mm is much improved.
The Nikkor has a 7-blade aperture, making for 14-point stars. The Tokina has a 9-blade aperture, which will produce 18-point stars. The Nikkor aperture blades are slightly rounded, which makes for slightly softer star effects. The Tokina's tend to be more sharply defined.
You also might want to consider the Tokina 12-28mm f4. It's slightly smaller and a little lower priced than the 11-20mm f2.8. Of the three, the Toki 12-28mm is the sharpest... and the best corrected for common wide angle distortion. Yes, at the widest setting there is some barrel distortion, but it's not as much as the other lenses at their widest (and, to be fair, with all three it's pretty easily corrected in post-processing, if needed).
The Toki 11-20mm f2.8 uses more expensive 82mm filters. The Nikkor and the Toki 12-28mm both use 77mm. The Nikkor is the lightest of the three at about 1 lb. The 12-28mm is a couple ounces heavier and the 11-20mm is the heaviest at about 20 oz.
The Tokina are very well built... they "feel" better than the Nikkor (and better than most other ultrawides). Not that the Nikkor is "bad". It's not. It also is pretty well built. It's just that the Toki are some of the best built in this category. Whether they will actually prove more durable and better sealed over time is hard to say. (I've been using the older model Toki 12-24mm f4 on my Canon for around 8 years, no problem... it looks and feels like some Canon premium "L-series" lenses I've used in the past.)
For many uses, f2.8 really isn't needed with wide angle lenses. It is popular for astrophotography and photojournalism, but rarely necessary for most other uses.
f2.8 on an ultrawide simply won't give shallow depth of field effects, the way it will on a moderate telephoto. In fact with ultrawides, it's much more common to be stopping the lens down for max depth of field, than using it wide open. And 10, 11, 12mm lenses are pretty easily handheld at slower shutter speeds. Plus many of the types of shots that are done with wide angles are done using a tripod anyway.
The Nikkor is actually a variable aperture lens... f3.5-4.5 (not just f3.5). Both the Tokina are non-variable... they maintain the same max aperture throughout their zoom range (f2.8 in one case, f4 in the other).
With the Nikkor, you're "giving up" an additional $300 to $400, compared to either Tokina. Toki 11-20mm.... $587. Toki 12-28mm... $450. Nikkor 10-24mm... $897.
Tokina and Nikon both use the same direction of rotation with their focus and zoom rings (Canon's turn the opposite direction).
All three lenses have built-in autofocus motors (AF-S style), so will AF on any modern Nikon cameras. When it comes to AF speed... you won't notice any difference between them. They are all virtually instantaneous. This type lens only needs to move it's focus group a few millimeters to focus, so all of them are quite fast.
The Tokina lenses' AF motors make a little bit of noise when operating... can be heard operating when shooting in very quiet conditions. Nothing major. Just some slight noises. In comparison, the Nikon and Canon ultrawides are pretty much silent.
Tokina also uses a rather unusual "focus clutch" mechanism to turn AF on and off. The focus ring is pushed forward or pulled backward to switch AF on or off. This works fine, but has one difference. When set with AF on, the focus ring is disengaged and rotating it doesn't do anything. This is good protection for the AF mechanisms... but means you can't manually override the focus without first shifting the lens from AF to MF. I was concerned about this when I first got my Tokina ultrawide lens some years ago, but found it really didn't bother me at all, out in the "real world". I simply leave AF on most of the time.
10mm versus 11mm... take one step backward.
11mm versus 12mm... take one more step backward. (Personally I use both the Tokina 12-24 and Canon 10-22mm. Real world, not a great deal of difference at their widest.)
Really, all three are good lenses and can make great images. The Tokina certainly "feel" and seem the best built. And they cost a lot less. If planning to travel and wanting the lightest possible, the Nikkor might be preferred. But in all other respects, I'd go with the Tokina instead.... saving $300 or $400 in the process.
In fact, virtually all lenses of this type are quite sharp. More likely are problems with flare and the way the lenses handle strong light sources.
The earlier Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 was quite prone to flare... but the 11-20mm is much improved.
The Nikkor has a 7-blade aperture, making for 14-point stars. The Tokina has a 9-blade aperture, which will produce 18-point stars. The Nikkor aperture blades are slightly rounded, which makes for slightly softer star effects. The Tokina's tend to be more sharply defined.
You also might want to consider the Tokina 12-28mm f4. It's slightly smaller and a little lower priced than the 11-20mm f2.8. Of the three, the Toki 12-28mm is the sharpest... and the best corrected for common wide angle distortion. Yes, at the widest setting there is some barrel distortion, but it's not as much as the other lenses at their widest (and, to be fair, with all three it's pretty easily corrected in post-processing, if needed).
The Toki 11-20mm f2.8 uses more expensive 82mm filters. The Nikkor and the Toki 12-28mm both use 77mm. The Nikkor is the lightest of the three at about 1 lb. The 12-28mm is a couple ounces heavier and the 11-20mm is the heaviest at about 20 oz.
The Tokina are very well built... they "feel" better than the Nikkor (and better than most other ultrawides). Not that the Nikkor is "bad". It's not. It also is pretty well built. It's just that the Toki are some of the best built in this category. Whether they will actually prove more durable and better sealed over time is hard to say. (I've been using the older model Toki 12-24mm f4 on my Canon for around 8 years, no problem... it looks and feels like some Canon premium "L-series" lenses I've used in the past.)
For many uses, f2.8 really isn't needed with wide angle lenses. It is popular for astrophotography and photojournalism, but rarely necessary for most other uses.
f2.8 on an ultrawide simply won't give shallow depth of field effects, the way it will on a moderate telephoto. In fact with ultrawides, it's much more common to be stopping the lens down for max depth of field, than using it wide open. And 10, 11, 12mm lenses are pretty easily handheld at slower shutter speeds. Plus many of the types of shots that are done with wide angles are done using a tripod anyway.
The Nikkor is actually a variable aperture lens... f3.5-4.5 (not just f3.5). Both the Tokina are non-variable... they maintain the same max aperture throughout their zoom range (f2.8 in one case, f4 in the other).
With the Nikkor, you're "giving up" an additional $300 to $400, compared to either Tokina. Toki 11-20mm.... $587. Toki 12-28mm... $450. Nikkor 10-24mm... $897.
Tokina and Nikon both use the same direction of rotation with their focus and zoom rings (Canon's turn the opposite direction).
All three lenses have built-in autofocus motors (AF-S style), so will AF on any modern Nikon cameras. When it comes to AF speed... you won't notice any difference between them. They are all virtually instantaneous. This type lens only needs to move it's focus group a few millimeters to focus, so all of them are quite fast.
The Tokina lenses' AF motors make a little bit of noise when operating... can be heard operating when shooting in very quiet conditions. Nothing major. Just some slight noises. In comparison, the Nikon and Canon ultrawides are pretty much silent.
Tokina also uses a rather unusual "focus clutch" mechanism to turn AF on and off. The focus ring is pushed forward or pulled backward to switch AF on or off. This works fine, but has one difference. When set with AF on, the focus ring is disengaged and rotating it doesn't do anything. This is good protection for the AF mechanisms... but means you can't manually override the focus without first shifting the lens from AF to MF. I was concerned about this when I first got my Tokina ultrawide lens some years ago, but found it really didn't bother me at all, out in the "real world". I simply leave AF on most of the time.
10mm versus 11mm... take one step backward.
11mm versus 12mm... take one more step backward. (Personally I use both the Tokina 12-24 and Canon 10-22mm. Real world, not a great deal of difference at their widest.)
Really, all three are good lenses and can make great images. The Tokina certainly "feel" and seem the best built. And they cost a lot less. If planning to travel and wanting the lightest possible, the Nikkor might be preferred. But in all other respects, I'd go with the Tokina instead.... saving $300 or $400 in the process.
Jul 10, 2016 12:30:12 #
The Tokina is sharp, but it has the usual minuses of Tokina lenses--pretty awful work against the light, and nightmarish levels of lateral chromatic aberration. I had the Tokina 11-16 and promptly got rid of it in favor of the Sigma 8-16, and have never looked back. The Sigma has one strong comet and several smaller spots in terms of the worst flare, which is generally fixable in Photoshop, but the Tokina, like my Nikon 14-24, has nasty bands covering a large area, which are just not fixable. I do a lot of work against the light, so this was just unacceptable to me. In fact, even with the 14-24, I carry the Sigma 8-16 and shoot in DX when I am shooting against the light. Now if you don't work against the light, the Tokina is fine. The CA can be eliminated in PS, though at the expense of some sharpness where it has been removed.
Also I must say the the Tokina focus clutch is a horrible design IMO.
Also I must say the the Tokina focus clutch is a horrible design IMO.
Jul 10, 2016 15:42:47 #
jeryh
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
I have a Tokina 16-28 ATX Pro, and also a Nikkor 17-55 F2.8; I was completely amazed at how sharp the Tokina was compared to the `nikon. It also surprised some `pro shooters so much they promptly bought a tokina !
Jul 10, 2016 15:56:38 #
The Tokina 11-20 has all but eliminated the flare problem especially if you are using the scalloped hood. You can get a slight flare if you are shooting right into a bright light but It is VERY minimal. Flare is common in almost all wide angle lenses under the right circumstances. As far as chromatic aberrations I have not experienced that yet but I'm sure I will eventually, but it's easily corrected in PP.
Jul 10, 2016 16:01:44 #
When I had Nikon, I had this lens and liked it very much. It was very sharp and the 2.8 would let you work lower lighting situation.
Jul 11, 2016 09:10:37 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.