Tokina 11-16 vs 12-24

I have searched the Forum and read both bythom.com and kenrockwell.com but have not been able to find good head-to-head comparision between Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and Tokina 12-24 f/4 for my D90's UWA applications.

It seems to me these two are very compatible on just about every major aspect (image quality, build, size, etc.), except for the fact that the 11-16 is 1 stop faster, while the 12-24 has longer reach from 16 to 24 mm.

1. Will I be correct if I base my decision between these two lenses on the two differences (speed vs reach)?

2. Also, my understanding is that Tonika outshines all other 3rd party lenses in this UWA category. I am also TRYING to ignore the Nikkor DX 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 and DX 12-24 f/4 because they are much more expensive. Is this rational or should I just save up for one of the two Nikkors?

Thanks in advance for your advices.

--
Namtarn
Panasonic TZ7
Nikon D90
Nikkor DX 18-105 VR, Nikkor DX 35 f/1.8, Nikkor 70-300 VR

Because the Tokina is faster, its sweet spot for sharpness is liable to be lower than the 12-24. The Tokina also has a little better distortion. Other than that, your breakdown of the differences is pretty much correct. I chose the Tokina because when I use an ultra wide, I know I need an ultra wide. The extra reach was less important to me than the ability to shoot in low light and have nice straight walls inside buildings.

sworth said:

Because the Tokina is faster, its sweet spot for sharpness is liable to be lower than the 12-24. The Tokina also has a little better distortion. Other than that, your breakdown of the differences is pretty much correct. I chose the Tokina because when I use an ultra wide, I know I need an ultra wide. The extra reach was less important to me than the ability to shoot in low light and have nice straight walls inside buildings.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input. For clarification, were you referring to which lenses (Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Tokina 12-24 f/4, or Nikkor DX 12-24 f/4)?

--
Namtarn
Panasonic TZ7
Nikon D90
Nikkor DX 18-105 VR, Nikkor DX 35 f/1.8, Nikkor 70-300 VR

Basically Tokina is offering you 2 different ways to getting to the same spot.
It depends on what's more import to your shooting style and work. I have
researched both lenses and can justify having both in my kit. I bought the
12-24 first as I needed the reach on the long end, and the UWA work I do
is with static subjects so faster glass was not a requirement. I shot an entire
car show with the 12-24 where the 11-16 would have not provided the
reach I needed to make the images. Conversely the 11-16 with the extra
stop of aperture is made for low light work, so night shots, and similar
arrangements let it shine.

You will not go wrong with either lens. If you can not afford both, then I
would suggest of making a list of what you shoot and what features will get
you more consistent results in getting those shots. That will indicate which
one to buy first.

If you want to see what the 12-24 is capable of, look at Roman Johnson's
work.

Namtarn said:

I have searched the Forum and read both bythom.com and kenrockwell.com but have not been able to find good head-to-head comparision between Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and Tokina 12-24 f/4 for my D90's UWA applications.

It seems to me these two are very compatible on just about every major aspect (image quality, build, size, etc.), except for the fact that the 11-16 is 1 stop faster, while the 12-24 has longer reach from 16 to 24 mm.

1. Will I be correct if I base my decision between these two lenses on the two differences (speed vs reach)?

2. Also, my understanding is that Tonika outshines all other 3rd party lenses in this UWA category. I am also TRYING to ignore the Nikkor DX 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 and DX 12-24 f/4 because they are much more expensive. Is this rational or should I just save up for one of the two Nikkors?

Thanks in advance for your advices.

--
Namtarn
Panasonic TZ7
Nikon D90
Nikkor DX 18-105 VR, Nikkor DX 35 f/1.8, Nikkor 70-300 VR

Click to expand...

Genix said:

Basically Tokina is offering you 2 different ways to getting to the same spot.
It depends on what's more import to your shooting style and work. I have
researched both lenses and can justify having both in my kit. I bought the
12-24 first as I needed the reach on the long end, and the UWA work I do
is with static subjects so faster glass was not a requirement. I shot an entire
car show with the 12-24 where the 11-16 would have not provided the
reach I needed to make the images. Conversely the 11-16 with the extra
stop of aperture is made for low light work, so night shots, and similar
arrangements let it shine.

You will not go wrong with either lens. If you can not afford both, then I
would suggest of making a list of what you shoot and what features will get
you more consistent results in getting those shots. That will indicate which
one to buy first.

If you want to see what the 12-24 is capable of, look at Roman Johnson's
work.

Click to expand...

Good advice. Still, there seems to be no head-to-head review of the Tokina 11-16 vs Tokina 12-24. I am especially curious as to the comparative IQ between the two.

--
Namtarn
Panasonic TZ7
Nikon D90
Nikon DX 18-105 VR, Nikon 70-300 VR, Nikon DX 35 f/1.8

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=1

vs

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/272-tokina-af-12-24mm-f4-at-x-pro-dx-canon-lens-test-report--review?start=1

These are on Canons but I'd expect the results would carry over almost directly to the Nikon versions. The 11-16 appears to have better edge to edge sharpness as well as higher sharpness FL for FL where they overlap. They've only reviewed the 12-24 on Nikon but here's that review for reference, results are pretty similar to the Canon:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/273-tokina-af-12-24mm-f4-at-x-pro-dx-nikon-lens-test-report--review?start=1
--
-Mike

The more I research, the more confusing it is. I came to the conclusion that this is because for DX UWA zooms, there is a well balanced trade-off between the top three: Tokina 11-16 (faster), Tokina 12-24 (longer reach), Nikon 10-24 (the best, but cost much more)

Additional info for the benefits of other readers:

DPReview on Tokina 12-24 DX
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tokina_12-24_4_n15/

ByThom on Nikkor AF-S DX 12-24
http://www.bythom.com/1224lens.htm

Ken Rockwell
Nikon 10-24 vs several UWAs: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-24mm.htm

WA Lenses: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison-index.htm
WA Charts: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/chart.htm

--
Namtarn
Panasonic TZ7
Nikon D90
Nikon DX 18-105 VR, Nikon 70-300 VR, Nikon DX 35 f/1.8

While I understand your curiosity, your are going at this the wrong way.

If IQ comps were so important to the success of a lens, then it would have
been done long before now. Ken Rockwell as a collective "here they are"
review of all the UWA zooms. Comprehensive? No. Practical? Yes.

I referred you to Roman Johnson's work with the 12-24 for a direct look at
what the 12-24 is capable of. IQ is irrelevant when the proof is in front of
you in terms of what has been produced.

Working professionals don't care about numbers so much as output - that's
what people pay for. So some lens as 5lpm better resolution in the corners,
or 1/6 stop less vignetting. So what? end clients don't care. They only see
the end print that moves them to pull out their wallet.

Worrying about numbers rather than viewing a lens as a tool to help you
capture the essence of your vision is a tortured world that never satisfies,
nor produces results anyone really cares to look out.

I'd be more worried about your ability with a camera than an IQ comparison
between two lenses that are both highly thought of and produce images
that are pleasing to both professional and amateur alike.

Namtarn said:

Genix said:

Basically Tokina is offering you 2 different ways to getting to the same spot.
It depends on what's more import to your shooting style and work. I have
researched both lenses and can justify having both in my kit. I bought the
12-24 first as I needed the reach on the long end, and the UWA work I do
is with static subjects so faster glass was not a requirement. I shot an entire
car show with the 12-24 where the 11-16 would have not provided the
reach I needed to make the images. Conversely the 11-16 with the extra
stop of aperture is made for low light work, so night shots, and similar
arrangements let it shine.

You will not go wrong with either lens. If you can not afford both, then I
would suggest of making a list of what you shoot and what features will get
you more consistent results in getting those shots. That will indicate which
one to buy first.

If you want to see what the 12-24 is capable of, look at Roman Johnson's
work.

Click to expand...

Good advice. Still, there seems to be no head-to-head review of the Tokina 11-16 vs Tokina 12-24. I am especially curious as to the comparative IQ between the two.

--
Namtarn
Panasonic TZ7
Nikon D90
Nikon DX 18-105 VR, Nikon 70-300 VR, Nikon DX 35 f/1.8

Click to expand...

I have the latest version of the Tokina 12-24 and I'm happy with the IQ up to 20mm. Above that the quality drops rapidly. If I need to go above 20mm I try to use f11. The review at SLR Gear matches my experience with the lens.

I just picked up the latest Tokina 12-14 (the "II" version with improved coating & internal focus motor) and have found little to complain about so far. The first-gen version was known to have a healthy amount of CA but I haven't seen any to speak of so far, so the coatings are working. Flare is very well controlled as well (I've done all my shooting with the hood attached).

I chose it over the 11-16 for two reasons. One, it was in stock, no waiting. Two, the increased range on the long end makes it a practical all-purpose lens for me. I have a feeling that it might replace my 18-70 as my go-to lens.

Nikon 10-24 the best? I've never seen that clear statement before. It has the cheapest build of the 3 for sure and I believe the jury is still out on the IQ. I'd love for it to be the clear winner as it has the best range and it is made by Nikon.

I'm interested in this thread as I just damaged my Tokina 12-24 (which I think is great for the money) and may need to repair or eventually replace it. I probably would have bought the 11-16 2.8 if it had been available at the time I bought mine. The cost difference between all these lenses is negligible to me, so I'm looking for the best of the 3 period. I don't believe there is a clear winner as they all have advantages and shortcomings. I'm even considering the Nikon 12-24 as it has started to drop to a more reasonable price.

Namtarn said:

The more I research, the more confusing it is. I came to the conclusion that this is because for DX UWA zooms, there is a well balanced trade-off between the top three: Tokina 11-16 (faster), Tokina 12-24 (longer reach), Nikon 10-24 (the best, but cost much more)

Click to expand...

The best lens for what?

Specs mean little when the lens won't cover the composition you are hoping
to obtain.

There is no clear winner in terms of numbers. Have $100K? Then you can have
the best at any price and layout your own ASIC's while your at it.

Lenses are tools first to render your vision of a subject. Specs give you the
practical limits with which to work with in terms of enlargement and post
processing. Tokina's 12-24 and 11-16 are both fine lenses, but have different
purposes in mind when they were created. IMO, the Nikkor 12-24 is better
than both, but you pay the money to get the performance. As far as my
clients go, they don't care - they buy my images whether it's a Tokina or
a Nikkor - they like what I shoot.

TOR8472 said:

Nikon 10-24 the best? I've never seen that clear statement before. It has the cheapest build of the 3 for sure and I believe the jury is still out on the IQ. I'd love for it to be the clear winner as it has the best range and it is made by Nikon.

I'm interested in this thread as I just damaged my Tokina 12-24 (which I think is great for the money) and may need to repair or eventually replace it. I probably would have bought the 11-16 2.8 if it had been available at the time I bought mine. The cost difference between all these lenses is negligible to me, so I'm looking for the best of the 3 period. I don't believe there is a clear winner as they all have advantages and shortcomings. I'm even considering the Nikon 12-24 as it has started to drop to a more reasonable price.

Namtarn said:

The more I research, the more confusing it is. I came to the conclusion that this is because for DX UWA zooms, there is a well balanced trade-off between the top three: Tokina 11-16 (faster), Tokina 12-24 (longer reach), Nikon 10-24 (the best, but cost much more)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Genix,

Your comment is much appreciated. So far I am not worried about photography skills because I haven't got one yet. There are so much to learn. I am simply hoping to reach the most rational decision on a purchase of an UWA lens which will be used by a shooter with the same skill (me) anyway.

I googled and found Roman Johnston Photography (believe he is the same person you mentioned). Glad I did. His work is inspirational.
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/my_favorites

There are also some photos taken by lenses we mentioned on this thread here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&thread=32459080

Namtarn

Genix said:

If IQ comps were so important to the success of a lens, then it would have
been done long before now. Ken Rockwell as a collective "here they are"
review of all the UWA zooms. Comprehensive? No. Practical? Yes.

I referred you to Roman Johnson's work with the 12-24 for a direct look at
what the 12-24 is capable of. IQ is irrelevant when the proof is in front of
you in terms of what has been produced.

Working professionals don't care about numbers so much as output - that's
what people pay for. So some lens as 5lpm better resolution in the corners,
or 1/6 stop less vignetting. So what? end clients don't care. They only see
the end print that moves them to pull out their wallet.

Worrying about numbers rather than viewing a lens as a tool to help you
capture the essence of your vision is a tortured world that never satisfies,
nor produces results anyone really cares to look out.

I'd be more worried about your ability with a camera than an IQ comparison
between two lenses that are both highly thought of and produce images
that are pleasing to both professional and amateur alike.

Namtarn said:

Genix said:

Basically Tokina is offering you 2 different ways to getting to the same spot.
It depends on what's more import to your shooting style and work. I have
researched both lenses and can justify having both in my kit. I bought the
12-24 first as I needed the reach on the long end, and the UWA work I do
is with static subjects so faster glass was not a requirement. I shot an entire
car show with the 12-24 where the 11-16 would have not provided the
reach I needed to make the images. Conversely the 11-16 with the extra
stop of aperture is made for low light work, so night shots, and similar
arrangements let it shine.

You will not go wrong with either lens. If you can not afford both, then I
would suggest of making a list of what you shoot and what features will get
you more consistent results in getting those shots. That will indicate which
one to buy first.

If you want to see what the 12-24 is capable of, look at Roman Johnson's
work.

Click to expand...

Good advice. Still, there seems to be no head-to-head review of the Tokina 11-16 vs Tokina 12-24. I am especially curious as to the comparative IQ between the two.

--
Namtarn

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Genix said:

Tokina's 12-24 and 11-16 are both fine lenses, but have different
purposes in mind when they were created. IMO, the Nikkor 12-24 is better
than both, but you pay the money to get the performance.

Click to expand...

I now see that lenses we have been discussing produce good image quality overall. Now, its me who have to produce good photos. Thanks.

--
Namtarn

Namtarn said:

I googled and found Roman Johnston Photography (believe he is the same person you mentioned). Glad I did. His work is inspirational.
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/my_favorites

Click to expand...

Just noticed that Roman Johnston (along with other wonderful contributors) posted his photos on the following thread too:

Namtarn said:

There are also some photos taken by lenses we mentioned on this thread here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&thread=32459080

Namtarn

Click to expand...

I would not automatically assume the 11-16 is better based upon the early reviews. Most of these (especially Rockwell's) were written in my opinion with a strong almost pre-determined poit of view. He really likes a bargain! Most the reviews on the internet these days are the same way, strong opinons are related to what passes for objective data. The only unbiased reviews I know about curretly are DXO Optics Mark testing and believe it or not Popular Photgraphy. I currently ownt the Tokina 11-16, Nikon 12-24 (now damaged), and the Nikon 14-24. Viewing actual output, I do not believe the Tokina is better than the Nikon 12-24, not even close. It has a pronounced tendency to flare that will get in you way if you are taking landscape shots. It is visibly more soft than the Nikon. The 14-24, even on DX, is the clear winner.
--
Erwin

Erwin Buske said:

I would not automatically assume the 11-16 is better based upon the early reviews. Most of these (especially Rockwell's) were written in my opinion with a strong almost pre-determined poit of view. He really likes a bargain! Most the reviews on the internet these days are the same way, strong opinons are related to what passes for objective data. The only unbiased reviews I know about curretly are DXO Optics Mark testing and believe it or not Popular Photgraphy. I currently ownt the Tokina 11-16, Nikon 12-24 (now damaged), and the Nikon 14-24. Viewing actual output, I do not believe the Tokina is better than the Nikon 12-24, not even close. It has a pronounced tendency to flare that will get in you way if you are taking landscape shots. It is visibly more soft than the Nikon. The 14-24, even on DX, is the clear winner.
--
Erwin

Click to expand...

The Tokina 11-16mm is a stellar performer in the lab and in the field. I've owned and used it extensively now. See an unbiased review below-

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon

I must have a bad sample! It also often hunts and pecks to find focus.
--
Erwin

Nikon 10-24

http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/TEST-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-10-24mm-f-3-5,2126.html

Tamron 10-14

http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/TEST-BONUS-MDLP-No14-Tamron-SP-AF,2011.html

Tokina 11-16

http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/Presentation,1385.html

I've bought the Nikon 10-24. After AF Tuning (+6) on the D300 I'm now satisfied with the IQ. I have to stop it down to f11 on 10mm to get good performance in the very extreme corners. But what I've seen from the tests above and other tests in the internet the other lenses are even worse.

The Nikon 10-24 is very fine and versatile lens. And it is expensive.

Martin

Since you are looking to start out, I will recommend the Tokina or Nikkor 12-24

as a first option. Part of that reasoning is that developing good skills with the
body you choose will require time with the lens on it as well to develop a good
sense of perspective. If you don't have a good idea of the things you wish to
spend time imaging then you will want to spend time with a lens that has a
good perspective to cover a number of shooting opportunities.

12-24 in DX translates to 18-36mm focal length in 35mm or FX parlance. This is
wide enough to cover any number of landscape and architectural shots, indoors,
crowds, large objects, and creative situations you will invent along the way.

There is no hard and fast rule about what to use to get a shot. You can even
do portraits with this lens, and it will give you a unique look that a normal or
portrait telephoto will not.

This not to say that an 11-16 zoom is bad, but I have used both, and have
found the 12-24 reach more useful for general photography. The advantage
to the 11-16 is that you can take "wider" shots of things such as buildings,
interiors, landscapes, etc. The extra 1mm yield several degrees of additional
coverage, and also increases perspective distortion that you may or may not
like.

Ultimately the decision is yours, and I think you will find a 12-24 will be more
suitable starting out than the 11-16. Once you get the hang of the 12-24
you may want to have the 11-16 for what it will do, and you will be comfortable
enough with shooting UWA to really enjoy the lens and it's yield.

Namtarn said:

Genix,

Your comment is much appreciated. So far I am not worried about photography skills because I haven't got one yet. There are so much to learn. I am simply hoping to reach the most rational decision on a purchase of an UWA lens which will be used by a shooter with the same skill (me) anyway.

I googled and found Roman Johnston Photography (believe he is the same person you mentioned). Glad I did. His work is inspirational.
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/my_favorites

There are also some photos taken by lenses we mentioned on this thread here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&thread=32459080

Namtarn

Click to expand...