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!

Tough Choice: Sigma 10-20 v. Tokina 12-24 v. Tokina 11-16

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by ShadowFox19, Aug 6, 2008.

  1. Greetings!
    I'm looking to add one of these wide angle zooms to my bag:
    - Sigma 10-20/4-5.6
    - Tokina 12-24/4
    - Tokina 11-16/2.8
    I'm torn on which one to get. I'm seeing great results with all three. The two situations I'll most likely use it in are outdoor landscape shots (day and night) and low light/night time conditions (indoor and outdoor)...I prefer not using a flash.
    Being that I plan on using it in low light/night time conditions, is it a no brainer to go for the 11-16/2.8 lens?
    If anyone has experience with these three lenses, your input would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks in advance!
  2. LXShooter


    Feb 28, 2008
    If you're planning on shooting in low-light settings, definately go for the Tokina 11-16/2.8. That's the one I would get myself. The only downfall is that there's not much to work with as far as focal length. But an f/2.8 on a wide lens is just incredible and makes it worth while.
  3. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008

    I think all the lenses are good. When I shoot my night time landscapes/cityscapes I tend to stop the lens down to f/8 or f/11 and use a tripod, so lens speed is no big issue.

    When shooting handheld at night I prefer f/1.2 or f/1.4 or f/1.8. It is worthwhile to note that f/1.4 allows four times faster shutter speed than f/2.8.

    I had the Tokina 12-24 and that lens is extremely sharp wide open. No need to stop it down for sharpness, ever.
  4. Excellent points, Peter.
    Thanks for your input.
  5. I own and really enjoy the 10-20, but it does need higher ISO's for handheld use in darker places. If you put a major priority on said use, than the speed advantage of the 11-16 almost certainly wins out.
  6. I don't have the Toki 11-16/2.8, but from all I have read about it, my vote will be for it. I have the Nikon 12-24/4, so didn't want to get a third party by trading in a Nikkor.
  7. Not necessarily. It all depends on your intended shutter speed and what you're hoping to achieve. I have the Sigma 10-20 and the majority of my shots with it are at night. Of course, I use low ISO, a tripod, shoot around f/8-f/11 and shutter speeds in excess of 8 seconds. In these situations, the faster f/2.8 wouldn't make much of a difference if I'm planning to stop down that far anyway.

    It really just depends on what you want to achieve.

    I suggest you go to a shop, try all three out and let features and price guide your decision making. Each of these lenses will yield similar results in terms of IQ, and you won't make a bad decision no matter which one you choose.
  8. Nick,

    A timely post so If you don't mind me posting a question here directed at Rich. If so, I'll remove it.


    I'm shopping for a wider lens as well. Like Nick, I'm also stuck on making a decision.

    How much more width do you gain comparing with the sig 10 and tam 17? You wouldn't have any photos of the same scene for a side by side comparison of both lens at the wide end do you?

    I visited two lakes this past weekend and just couldn't get the whole view with my tam 17. Moving back for a wider view presents obstructions to the view. Near the lake edge was the best place for the shots.


  9. The difference between 10mm and 17mm is significant.

    Although these are not taken from the exact same vantage point, they are pretty close.

    Tamron 17-50 @ 17mm:

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Sigma 10-20 @ 10mm:

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Also take note that the 10mm image has been cropped!
  10. philcozz


    Jun 27, 2007
    Colchester, UK
    I own the Sigma and the Tokina 12-24, and I have to say I am happier with images from the Tokina. The Sigma gives a bit more on the wide end, which is nice, but IQ matters more, imo. Just my perspective.
  11. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008
    check this Tamron web gizmo. You can play with different focal lengths on the same image:
    Tamron Lens Selector
  12. Dawgneck


    Apr 25, 2007
    So Cal
    My vote is for the Tokina 11-16.

    It is a great lens and a great bargain, if you are looking for something in this range.

    I reluctantly sold mine Monday because I'm moving to FX and want FX lenses.

    I wish Tokina creates one specifically for FX because I really think it is a great lens. I don't think my other choices, especially the 14-24, is worth the premium over the Tokina 11-16.
  13. CraigH


    Mar 21, 2008
    Orlando, Florida
    I'm the opposite. I owned the Tokina 12-24 and sold it shortly thereafter. I purchased the 10-20 Sigma and haven't looked back. I think it has the better IQ overall.
  14. scooptdoo

    scooptdoo Guest

    why wouldnt you want the tokina 2.8 11-16.i sure would.

  15. RichG,

    Thank you very much!
    A good comparison! I can see that you were pretty much in the same spot, plus the sig image was cropped. The sig 10 may have been what I need to get the shots at the lakes.

    Thanks again for posting your comments and images.

    Hmmm, now the sig 10 or the tok 11?

    I'm leaning towards the tok 11-16 but the sig 10-20 has a little more zoom. However the tok has ƒ/2.8 which lets in more light for my old tired eyes.

    Decisions, decisions!

  16. Hey, thanks Peter!

    I put that one in my favorites.

  17. tokina 11-16 2.8
  18. I've been kinda bummed out/ticked with myself because my 10-20 sigma took a tumble and I put some ugly marks on the front element forcing myself to replace it. I'm starting to think that maybe everything does happen for a reason because due to the advice I got here I bought the 12-24 tokina and so far I'd say it far out performs the 10-20 sigma. Maybe I got a bad sample, I dunno but one thing's for sure I'm pulling more detail out of the 12-24 than I ever did with the sigma.

    First impressions, 12-24 tokina:


    Perhaps tipping my tripod over was the photography gods way helping me get better wide angle landscapes.
  19. slappomatt


    May 13, 2006
    San Diego CA
    I imediatly thought I would sell my tokina 12-24 and get the 11-16. but now with the D300 and the cleaner iso's I dont worry about F4 so much anymore. and I find with that lens being my goto walkaround lens. I use the 24 alot! the extra MM on the wide end is neat. but the extra 8mm on the long side gets more use by me.
  20. stamp22


    Mar 15, 2008
    Los Angeles
    I do not have any of those three lens, but if I need a 11-16 then I rather get a prime 14mm. The range of 11-16 is too narrow for a zoom.

    Just my 2 cent.
  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.