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

Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
534
Location
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
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange, CA
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.
 
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
529
Location
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.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
674
Location
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.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
6,530
Location
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.
 
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
529
Location
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.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
10
Location
orange county
New to photography in general. First photo with 11-16mm. Thanks.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
534
Location
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.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom