Nikon 10-24 mm f/3.5-4.5 vs Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8

irreversible1993

So, currently I have a Nikon D80 and a kit-lens (Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6)

I am currently looking for a wide-angle lens to purchase and am stuck between the Nikon 10-24 mm f/3.5-4.5 and the Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8

So, here's the scoop: I like the extra mm on the Nikon. The Tokina is faster, but I'd probably shoot at higher f-stops most of the time anyway, for higher clarity. The 2.8 would be nice at night if I am without a tripod.
And the Tokina doesn't go as high on the zoom, so it's purely a super wide-angle, while the Nikon is a super-wide, but can be a medium-to-wide as well, at 24 mm.

So it'd sound like Nikon is best, right? Well, I've heard that the Nikon lens isn't built well. I also heard that the Nikon lens has visible softness on the edges at the super wide range. And I've heard the Tokina has just better clarity and color overall in the shots. I was originally sold on the Tokina, but I want to know how truly better the quality is, and if you know anything else I should know, like distortion amount and such.

Oh, I guess it should be known that I want wide-angle primarily to do cool landscapes, city-scapes, and interior design shots. I want the best clarity and richness. But I also would like versatility. Will those extra 8 mm (from 16 to 24) considerably take away from the lens's flexibility? As in, would I constantly be having to change lenses? Or would the 16 mm still allow me to take general closer-up shots with minor placement adjustment?

Thanks! And please limit this to these two lenses only I have researched others and these two are my favorites.

ziggy53

irreversible1993 wrote: »

... I want the best clarity and richness. But I also would like versatility. Will those extra 8 mm (from 16 to 24) considerably take away from the lens's flexibility? As in, would I constantly be having to change lenses? Or would the 16 mm still allow me to take general closer-up shots with minor placement adjustment? ...

The very best way to know if either lens meets your needs is to rent one or both lenses.

Yes, the Tokina 11-16mm, f2.8 AT-X Pro DX is arguably the better image quality of the two lenses, and yes, the Nikkor AF-S DX 10-24mm, f3.5-4.5G ED is the more versatile.

If you want to try to decide using other folk's images, here is a pretty good sampling of both lenses:

Tokina 11-16mm, f2.8

Nikkor 10-24mm, f3.5-4.5G

newb

I started another thread along these lines a while back. Unfortunately I opted for another lens that I needed a little more, so I cant give personal input. But theres still some good advice here.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=192826

Matthew Saville

Yep, unfortunately you can't have both at this point. If you shoot mostly landscapes at f/8, then get the lens with more reach. Actually, I can more highly recommend the Sigma 10-20, the older version. (f/4-5.6) It has a little less range than the Nikon 10-24, but the Sigma is a boat-load sharper in the extreme corners.

However, another thing to consider as a landscape photographer is night / star photography, and of course ruggedness in general. If you're not just the average landscape photographer, and are just as likely to be shooting at sunset and 2 AM on top of a rock pile in Joshua Tree, ...then it's back to the built-like-a-rock Tokina. It's not just f/2.8, it's amazingly sharp at f/2.8 for things like star trails and whatnot.

Also, as an added bonus, the Tokina 11-16 2.8 works great at 16mm on full-frame, so you could possibly forego the purchase of an insanely expensive full-frame ultrawide... ;-)


=Matt=