1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Tokina 12-24 f/4 vs. 11-16 f/2.8

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by jshillhouse, Jul 28, 2009.

  1. jshillhouse

    jshillhouse

    534
    Apr 22, 2009
    Utah
    I'd like to get a wide angle lens, and I've liked what I've seen from the 12-24 f/4, but noticed the 11-16 f/2.8, and I'd like to get some input/opinions on pros and cons on each. My initial thought is for an extra $100, I'd sacrifice a little zoom for a faster lens... Please chime in and let me know if I'm missing something, or at least your opinions.

    Thanks
    Jeff
     
  2. Preston

    Preston

    273
    May 2, 2005
    Reno, NV
    The 11-16 is a far better lens in almost every way. Go with the 11-16 and don't look back.
     
  3. Details?
     
  4. Ajtat411

    Ajtat411

    22
    Nov 20, 2007
    Fairfield
    11-16 is a great lens, had it for a while but didn't use it enough.
     
  5. I've owned both. Currently have 11-16.

    11-16 is as sharp at 2.8 as 12-24 is probably at f/8

    Okay maybe that maybe a little bit extreme, but it sure feels like it.
     
  6. Jaytron

    Jaytron

    736
    Mar 22, 2009
    San Jose, CA
    Now, where to find the 11-16, BH doesn't have it
     
  7. neimac

    neimac

    529
    May 26, 2008
    Idaho
    I dunno, your going to have a fun time actually going with the 11-16 since it's hard to come by. It would probably make more sense with your lens lineup though.
     
  8. Weston

    Weston

    674
    Dec 29, 2008
    Springfield, OR
    I had my local camera store order it in over a month ago, and they still haven't got it in yet. You could pay an extra $200 and get it off ebay if you had to have it right away.

    I borrowed the Tokina 12-24(new one with motor for D40) and it was great. I really liked the build quality and focus clutch. I would guess the 11-16 is just as good or better.
     
  9. SP77

    SP77

    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    I have the 11-16 and while it's a great lens, I ended up selling it. The lack of range for a zoom was really annoying and I found myself trying to avoid using it just so that I wouldn't have to pop it on for one shot and then switching back to a 17/18-xxx mm zoom. Some extra range like the 12-24 provided would have bee nice. Also I found that I generally liked to shoot stopped down to at least f/4 anyways for depth of field. So add the two together and the best ultra-wide zoom for me is a Tokina or Nikon 12-24/4, or the new Nikon 10-24.

    I've managed to get side-tracked with a Nikon 14mm f/2.8D prime lens that I love so I haven't gotten around to picking up a wider angle ultra-wide zoom, and plus I don't use them that much anyways.
     
  10. neimac

    neimac

    529
    May 26, 2008
    Idaho
    What Steve said is allot of the reason I went with the Tokina 12-24, I don't need to stop down to 2.8 on a ultra-wide and it fit much better focal length wise with the rest of my lenses.
     
  11. wilcowilco

    wilcowilco

    10
    Apr 22, 2009
    orange county
    New to photography in general. First photo with 11-16mm. Thanks.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. jshillhouse

    jshillhouse

    534
    Apr 22, 2009
    Utah
    Thanks everyone, I think the 11-16 sounds like it's right up my alley, since my walk-around lens is an 18-105, the 17-24 range doesn't really bother me, since I'm really only missing the 17mm. It may bother me to have such a short zoom range, but I think it will be worth it for the option of 2.8. Plus it sounds like the 12-24 is a great piece of glass, but that the 11-16 is even better. Now, I just need to find it.
     
  13. Samples Please!
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.