DSLRUsers.com

Just wondering what people's views are on these two lenses (in comparison to each other) ?

I know the Sigma is a favourite of many people and 10mm is enticing, however the Tokina is only just shy (@ 11mm) and would be great in low-light conditions - @ f2.8

Reading reviews it seems both lenses are highly regarded....and the Tokina is touted as being "very close" to the Nikon 12-24.

If anyone has used both these lenses, or can offer any advice on either lens, that would be great as I am hoping to enter the UW world soon

Can I say that I am looking at entering the UW world as well, either that of the high quality Telephoto zoom, but leaning towards getting a FX lens - I am thinking I will go FX with my next DSLR and I would like compatibility with my F80 which I use a fair bit.

I have used the Tokina 12-24 (which is really good) the Tamron 11-18 (which is a bit of a dog, lots of distortion and v slow AF) and would also like to hear from Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16 users as well (esp the Tokina 11-16)

slightly - are there any good UW FX lenses for Nikon other than the Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8? Cost (which I will get over) Bulk and lack of filters (I love my ND filters - cokin P series - for landscape work) are my forseeable drawbacks on this lens.

Many apologies for hijacking this thread

Aim, I doubt you will get equal quality to the Nikkor 14-24 for much less money at the moment. That said, the Sigma 12-24 will fit Nikon FX, it solves one of the problems, cost (it is about 1/3rd of the 14-24) but some bulk and no filters remain.

Hi Aussie Dave... I would be going for the Tokina 11-16mm. I have to confess that I have not tested it but based on my experience with Tokina in the past I think it should be a good lens. The Sigma is a very good lens... the one thing that you need to decide for yourself though is whether you need the speed. If you regular find yourself photographing people in low light situations on a regular basis then it would be my preferred option.
As for the Sigma 12-24mm lens... don't go there... it is a dog with fleas. Very big, very slow and the only way you'll get good images out of it is if you are throttling the aperture at f8 or more.

Antsl wrote:As for the Sigma 12-24mm lens... don't go there... it is a dog with fleas. Very big, very slow and the only way you'll get good images out of it is if you are throttling the aperture at f8 or more.

Big yes, but balances very well with the D300 and D2Hs. Slow, I don’t know where that comes from but mine snaps into focus very, very quickly. Every lens has a sweet spot but I can get good images at 4.5 and I think you will find the sweet spot of this lens is f/8.

I would rather have a Newfoundland with fleas than a poodle with none

I have the Tokina 11-16 coupled to a D300, and can say its a real joy to shoot with, images are sharp and build quality if up there.

You will have no regrets if you purchase the Tokina.

Antsl wrote:Hi Aussie Dave... I would be going for the Tokina 11-16mm. I have to confess that I have not tested it but based on my experience with Tokina in the past I think it should be a good lens. The Sigma is a very good lens... the one thing that you need to decide for yourself though is whether you need the speed. If you regular find yourself photographing people in low light situations on a regular basis then it would be my preferred option.
As for the Sigma 12-24mm lens... don't go there... it is a dog with fleas. Very big, very slow and the only way you'll get good images out of it is if you are throttling the aperture at f8 or more.

Thanks for your feedback guys.
I see myself using the UW lens at it's shortest focal length most of the time (ie. 10 - 12mm), so the Tokina only being 16mm (compared to the Sigma's 20mm) doesn't worry me too much, as I have the 18-70 kit lens.

The sticking point in my mind is that I'd pretty much decided on the Sigma until I stumbled across the Tokina, recently. I don't know if I NEED a fast lens (f2., however I do see this affording me more options when out and about shooting (see my signature )....I guess a similar argument to the 50 1.4 vs 1.8.

I'm therefore now starting to lean towards the Tokina (for this very reason)....assuming of course that both lenses are comparable in terms af sharpness, build quality etc.

I know the Sigma is a strong performer, but is the Tokina a comparable lens (with the added benefit of being a faster lens), OR is the Sigma still the better buy ?

Decisions....decisions....

sirhc55 wrote:

Antsl wrote:As for the Sigma 12-24mm lens... don't go there... it is a dog with fleas. Very big, very slow and the only way you'll get good images out of it is if you are throttling the aperture at f8 or more.

Big yes, but balances very well with the D300 and D2Hs. Slow, I don’t know where that comes from but mine snaps into focus very, very quickly. Every lens has a sweet spot but I can get good images at 4.5 and I think you will find the sweet spot of this lens is f/8.

I would rather have a Newfoundland with fleas than a poodle with none

Hmmm now I have looked at the Siggy, but have been put off with some of the stuff that I have read about it, ie not being great. They are a fair bit cheaper than the Nikkor, but if it is not of decent quality I will have to buy again, then I may as well pick up a cheap Tokina 12-24 or the 11-16 and replace that when i do go FX, at least I will have filters and no worries about the quality (the 12-24 is something I have used a fair bit and am happy with, just not FX). Of the problems I listed before cost is probably the least worrying one as I can just put off buying until I have the money, i wont be happy but i am sure that can be done.

Any chance of being able to play with your Siggy 12-24 Chris?

Thanks for the replies

No problem - if you are in the Neutral Bay area at anytime

pm sent

... Obsolete ...

VK4CP wrote:Tokina glass is nice and solid.

That’s amazing considering that glass is a liquid

... Obsolete ...

I would echo Chris comments on the 12-24, I find its low distortion at the wide end very useful for real estate photos. That said it would not be my first choice as a travel lens wide angle due to bulk. If you don't want to buy twice get the 14-24

I can't comment on the Tokina, but these images were all taken with the Sigma 10-20
http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=33454
Focal length varied from 10... 13mm. Check the EXIF for details. Admittedly it was bright, so no need to be wide open; but I am very happy with the results.

I see myself using the UW lens at it's shortest focal length most of the time (ie. 10 - 12mm), so the Tokina only being 16mm (compared to the Sigma's 20mm) doesn't worry me too much, as I have the 18-70 kit lens.

If you want to always be at the wide end, the extra 1mm on the Sigma may be important.

Perhaps a Tokina owner could post some pics to help you decide.

sirhc55 wrote:

VK4CP wrote:Tokina glass is nice and solid.

That’s amazing considering that glass is a liquid

Actually, glass is a solid. It is only a liquid in urban legends.

... Obsolete ...

ATJ wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:

VK4CP wrote:Tokina glass is nice and solid.

That’s amazing considering that glass is a liquid

Actually, glass is a solid. It is only a liquid in urban legends.

Darn you caught me out

A quote I found:

Most liquids crystallize rapidly at a well-defined temperature Tf (melting point or liquidus temperature) with a marked change in volume--usually a decrease. If the melt is completely free from crystal nuclei or foreign particles, it can be supercooled to some extent [...]. Glass-forming melts can be supercooled to an unusually high degree, even when nuclei are present. [...] The viscosity of the supercooled melt continues to increase as the temperature is reduced until a range of temperatures [around a point called Tg] is reached, below which the material is for most practical purposes a solid. This [range] is called the transformation range [...]. Only below this range is correct to refer to the material as glass. [...] Below Tg a glass, like a supercooled liquid, has a higher free energy than a crystalline phase or a mixture of crystalline phases. However, because structural rearrangements can occur only extremely slowly at temperatures well below Tg, the glass is stable for all practical purposes.

Scientists are very much like the people who write instruction manuals for the VCR

Thanks very much everyone.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that the faster Tokina lens will give me more options than the slower Sigma lens that has an extra 1mm FL.

good to hear that you have come to a decison, does anyone know how the Tokina 11-16 will behave on a film or FX camera in FX mode?

aim54x wrote:....... does anyone know how the Tokina 11-16 will behave on a film or FX camera in FX mode?

Try HERE....about half way down the page

hmm Mr Rockwell says it is ok from about 15mm eh? wouldnt be a bad compromise, this is looking really tempting now!!! I must go and see if i can have a look for myself on an 11-16 shooting film. Anyone know where i can play with one of these on a film body or on a FX body?

I sold my Sigma 10-20 to get a Tokina 11-16, they both are great lens. But I'm still after the extra bit of speed the 11-16 gives me.

The 11-16 is not really designed to shoot at f2.8 at matched quality of the nikkor 14-24. But the quality it produces, it is quite amazing. I'm amazed at the price vs performance ratio. I don't shoot FX, so I can't justify the 14-24 for my use and its a lot lighter in your bag and wallet, too.

Adam, you are right. Poor expression on my part. There should have been a bigger gap between those comments, I think the Sigma 12-24 is big, I like the Tamron 11-18 size for travelling but prefer the characteristics of others lens in the UW group. For travelling I would really like a 10 or 12mm prime. That said, if Aim54x is buying any of these lenses as substitute for the 14-24 Nikkor I think none will really satisfy, I would honestly start saving and buy once

Glen wrote:Adam, you are right. Poor expression on my part. There should have been a bigger gap between those comments, I think the Sigma 12-24 is big, I like the Tamron 11-18 size for travelling but prefer the characteristics of others lens in the UW group. For travelling I would really like a 10 or 12mm prime. That said, if Aim54x is buying any of these lenses as substitute for the 14-24 Nikkor I think none will really satisfy, I would honestly start saving and buy once

I had another look at the 12-24 andthe 14-24 yesterday, and your totally correct Glen, I am going to have to start saving for that 14-24, nothing short of it will satisfy me.

I actaully had to revisit the AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 VR as well after playing with the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Thank god I have a friend that has both these lenses, who was willing to let me hold them for 5mins to reassure me that I NEED the Nikkor and nothing short of them will satisfy. ROFL