Sigma 10-20 versus tokina 11-16

[bnnrcn]

I have come to the point of buying an UWA lens,because I want to take landscape photos and my 17-50mm , f 2.8 tamron lens doesn't enough for this purpose.So I was going to order a sigma 10-20 mm,f/4-5.6 for this purpose but I have noticed there is a Tokina 11-16 mm ,f 2.8 and I couldn't decide what to do..I'm actually still on the Sigma side but I need your opinion.Do I really need f 2.8 when I shoot landscapes on a tripod,does it worth paying more money..I also need advice about the angles of these lenses.Sigma has got 102.4-63.8 and Tokina has got 104-82 so which one is more suitable for a UWA lens.Minimim focus length is 24 cm for Sigma,but Tokina's min.focus length is 30 cm.Sigma is very light(only 470 gr),Tokina is heavier than sigma(560 gr),So sigma seems to be more handy for the shots without a tripod.I will order next week and I feel very excited about it:-)))

[kap55]

Hi Binnur,

I have had the Tokina 11-16 a couple of years and like it quite a bit. At the time I was shopping for a UWA I did all the comparisons you are probably doing right now and found the Tokina best met my needs. f2.8 has come into play for me when doing shots without a tripod. I can't ever remember when minimum focus distance was ever an issue. Anyway there are many user reviews of both (and many, many more) lens at this web site:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

Good luck in your search.

Brian

[John 2]

Hi Binnur,

I have had the Tokina 11-16 a couple of years and like it quite a bit. At the time I was shopping for a UWA I did all the comparisons you are probably doing right now and found the Tokina best met my needs. f2.8 has come into play for me when doing shots without a tripod. I can't ever remember when minimum focus distance was ever an issue. Anyway there are many user reviews of both (and many, many more) lens at this web site:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

Good luck in your search.

Brian

Same here word for word. Although I can't compare the two lenses, I don't think you will be disappointed with the Tokina.

[singlerosa]

Ditto on the Tokina. Used it on my D7000 for the past few years and also use it at 16mm on my D600. In addition to landscapes, you can get some interesting people and architectural shots with UWA lenses.

[rpcrowe]

Dittto on John, Brian and Jim... I have used the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 lens for many years and I am very happy with it.

I have got to admit though, that I developed a bad taste in my mouth for Sigma products This results from owning a very nice 28mm f/1.8 Sigma prime lens which, unfortunately cannot be used on any Canon camera newer than the 10D because of the Sigma system of reverse engineering. Sigma, will not or cannot upgrade the lens for use with a newer camera.

My only partial salvation is that I converted an ancient Canon D60 (not the newer 60D) to full time infrared photography. The 28mm Sigma lives on that lens...

I use the 12-24mm Tokina on every camera from the D30, through 30D, 40D and 7D. I also had a really ancient 400mm f/5.6 Tokina ATX lens which I could use with all my cameras. Thus, I have more confidence in the longevity of Tokina lenses...

[bnnrcn]

Thanks all of you,you have been really helpful.What about the angles?Sigma goes to 63.8 but Tokina goes to 82,does it make an important difference?

[Black Pearl]

Thats doesn't make sense because the Sigma is wider.

I have owned the Sigma 10-20mm f4/5.6 since it was very first launched. Pre-ordered it when I worked in a camera store and got one from the first batch to hit the UK. Still going strong and still love it. You'll never get a decisive answer as to which is best as if someone has one they are likely to say its the one to buy. Suffice to say both are good and both will give you fantastic images.

[kap55]

Thanks all of you,you have been really helpful.What about the angles?Sigma goes to 63.8 but Tokina goes to 82,does it make an important difference?

I don't think the field of view is a major consideration - it's just a function of the focal length that you happen to have selected. Besides there's not much you can do about it.

One thing I forgot to mention about the Tokina - it's built like a tank. I wish my Nikon lenses were built to the same standard.

[rpcrowe]

I personally like the focal range of the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina better than I do the 11-16mm. The 11-16mm is 1mm wider (which actually amounts to quite a bit when working in the 11-12mm area) but, the 11-16mm is 8mm shorter at its longest end.

I am a great believer in redundancy. When I carry my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on my two cameras, I will also bring the 12-24mm Tokina along on a trip.

My 17-55mm has never failed me, but if it did, the 24mm side of the 12-24mm Tokina (19.2 to 38.4 mm equivalent) could limp along as the mid range zoom...

[Manfred M]

Binnur - Mistake number one is to assume that you want an ultra-wide angle lens to shoot landscape. NO!

This is not a good choice of lens for most landscape work. It will give you an image that is all foreground and sky, with very little of the landscape in the image itself; which leads to a very uninteresting image. Can it be used for landscape work; yes, but only in very specific situations where you have enough material to fill the frame or if there is something in the foreground that can be crafted into an interesting image.

I am a self-professed ultra-wide "junkie" I have the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm for my crop frame camera and the even wider f/2.8 14-24mm lens for my full-frame camera. I ususally use them for building interiors, but do some landscape work with them.

Tokina versus Sigma - the Tokina has a far higher build quality.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks all of you,you have been really helpful.What about the angles?Sigma goes to 63.8 [degrees] but Tokina goes to 82,does it make an important difference?

Don't be fooled by wherever you read that. The angle of view is usually quoted for an 'APS-C' image circle whose diameter is the diagonal of (originally) 25.1mm x 16.7mm. However, should you happen to own a Canon 1100D, your sensor size is smaller than that (22.2mm x 14.7mm). Which means that neither the Sigma nor the Tokina would get that wide on your camera.

By coincidence, I'm bidding on a Sigma 10-20mm today . . .

[edit] . . . and just lost to a higher bidder

[Stagecoach]

I have had the Sigma 10-20mm for years and can not fault it other than the poor lens cap that I replaced with a standard Nikon one.

Grahame

[bnnrcn]

Thank you Manfred,may be I used wrong words about shooting landscapes.I have a Tamron 17-50 already but it isn't enough to shoot sky completely,I quite like photos with big rocks ,sea and sky.I did scuba diving in the past and I'm always attracted to shores,sea and sky .But I also want to shoot valleys and mountains,I'm very fond of nature.So,to complete my set of lenses,I think I have to buy an UWA.I have come to the point of buying a Tokina after a lot of comments and inquiry on the internet.

Binnur - Mistake number one is to assume that you want an ultra-wide angle lens to shoot landscape. NO!

This is not a good choice of lens for most landscape work. It will give you an image that is all foreground and sky, with very little of the landscape in the image itself; which leads to a very uninteresting image. Can it be used for landscape work; yes, but only in very specific situations where you have enough material to fill the frame or if there is something in the foreground that can be crafted into an interesting image.

I am a self-professed ultra-wide "junkie" I have the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm for my crop frame camera and the even wider f/2.8 14-24mm lens for my full-frame camera. I ususally use them for building interiors, but do some landscape work with them.

Tokina versus Sigma - the Tokina has a far higher build quality.

[bnnrcn]

Don't be fooled by wherever you read that. The angle of view is usually quoted for an 'APS-C' image circle whose diameter is the diagonal of (originally) 25.1mm x
Sorry about the loss Ted,I hope you will get a good one soon:-)

16.7mm. However, should you happen to own a Canon 1100D, your sensor size is smaller than that (22.2mm x 14.7mm). Which means that neither the Sigma nor the Tokina would get that wide on your camera.

By coincidence, I'm bidding on a Sigma 10-20mm today . . .

[edit] . . . and just lost to a higher bidder

[bnnrcn]

Sorry about the loss Ted,I hope you will get a better one soon:-)

Don't be fooled by wherever you read that. The angle of view is usually quoted for an 'APS-C' image circle whose diameter is the diagonal of (originally) 25.1mm x 16.7mm. However, should you happen to own a Canon 1100D, your sensor size is smaller than that (22.2mm x 14.7mm). Which means that neither the Sigma nor the Tokina would get that wide on your camera.

By coincidence, I'm bidding on a Sigma 10-20mm today . . .

[edit] . . . and just lost to a higher bidder

[RustBeltRaw]

One thing I forgot to mention about the Tokina - it's built like a tank. I wish my Nikon lenses were built to the same standard.

I respectfully disagree. The Tokina is indeed well-made, but it has no sealing, and isn't as robust as it feels. See this thread, started when I damaged mine. Whether a lens should be expected to survive a 2.5ft (0.8m) drop onto concrete is another question, but "built like a tank" strikes me as overstating the build quality.

Note that thread is 5 days shy of 2 months old. The lens is still with Tokina for repairs. I'll be glad to have it back, because it's a good bit of glass. Not my favorite in terms of quality or ergonomics, but it beats not having a lens wide enough to get the shot.

[bnnrcn]

Thank you Lex,I hope you will get your lens back soon..

I respectfully disagree. The Tokina is indeed well-made, but it has no sealing, and isn't as robust as it feels. See this thread, started when I damaged mine. Whether a lens should be expected to survive a 2.5ft (0.8m) drop onto concrete is another question, but "built like a tank" strikes me as overstating the build quality.

Note that thread is 5 days shy of 2 months old. The lens is still with Tokina for repairs. I'll be glad to have it back, because it's a good bit of glass. Not my favorite in terms of quality or ergonomics, but it beats not having a lens wide enough to get the shot.