Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 ex VS Tokina 11-16 F2.8

Which one would you go with?

I don't consider the 2.8 to be a huge advantage on such a wide lens, personally. So that aside, which seems to be the better deal, better optics?

No one?

I am on the same boat as you.. I can't decide between either.

why would you want a 4-5.6 when u have 2.8?
the decision is obvious.
indoor -> 2.8 wins.

What kind of shooting do you plan to do with it? If I were shooting indoors handheld, I would probably want the Tokina for that 2.8. But I shoot mostly landscapes at narrow apertures for larger depth of field so 2.8 would never get used. The Sigma is significantly cheaper as well.

I don't have experience with the Tokina but I do have the Sigma and I'm very happy with it. Focuses well, not too much flare and very little vignetting. With a little sharpening and contrast in post I think you'd be hard pressed to tell any of the UWA lenses apart image quality wise.

tokina

No contest....Tokina

My friend just picked up a Tokina 11-16 about a month ago and he loves it. Tokina has better control on distortion and image quality IMO.

Tokina is sharper and like skywalkee says, has better distortion. However, it's missing 1mm, and that makes a big difference. Not sure why Tokain didn't make it a 10-15 to match the market standard at the wide end.

I own the 10-20, and it's sharper than my 17-40L. Very nice lens and an outstanding value at $470. The 10-20 has made me a Sigma fan. I have to say, I'm starting to prefer the subdued, tasteful, film-like rendition of the 10-20 as well....

The 2.8 isn't really an advantage on such a wide lens except for night sky shooting. If I had to round up the "popular" UWA's, I'd choose them this way:

Canon 10-22 < Tokina 11-16 < Samyang 14mm 2.8 prime (the sharpest and cheapest) < Sigma 10-20 (best all around value for landscapers).

There's a big difference between 10mm and 11, and 16mm and 20mm.

MFG wrote in post #13482485
why would you want a 4-5.6 when u have 2.8?
the decision is obvious.
indoor -> 2.8 wins.

Someone didn't read my original post..

Mike55 wrote in post #13483266
Tokina is sharper and like skywalkee says, has better distortion. However, it's missing 1mm, and that makes a big difference. Not sure why Tokain didn't make it a 10-15 to match the market standard at the wide end.

I own the 10-20, and it's sharper than my 17-40L. Very nice lens and an outstanding value at $470. The 10-20 has made me a Sigma fan. I have to say, I'm starting to prefer the subdued, tasteful, film-like rendition of the 10-20 as well....

The 2.8 isn't really an advantage on such a wide lens except for night sky shooting. If I had to round up the "popular" UWA's, I'd choose them this way:

Canon 10-22 < Tokina 11-16 < Samyang 14mm 2.8 prime (the sharpest and cheapest) < Sigma 10-20 (best all around value for landscapers).

There's a big difference between 10mm and 11, and 16mm and 20mm.

Good post!

Max Powers wrote in post #13479158
Which one would you go with?

The Canon 10-22, even if I had to get it second-hand. I own one of them and a 11-16. I also tried a friends 10-20 when I was buying an UWA. The Sigma was OK except that one side was always soft. The Tokina is great for use when f2.8 is essential (night or indoor) but its lousy flare control makes it terrible for use outside.

The 10-22 wins on range and outdoor performance.

hollis_f wrote in post #13483521
The Canon 10-22, even if I had to get it second-hand. I own one of them and a 11-16. I also tried a friends 10-20 when I was buying an UWA. The Sigma was OK except that one side was always soft. The Tokina is great for use when f2.8 is essential (night or indoor) but its lousy flare control makes it terrible for use outside.

The 10-22 wins on range and outdoor performance.

I'm also a fan. Just very expensive for me.

*I also am not a fan of the flare on the tokina.

I've rented a 10-22, and owned the 10-20 previously. Have never owned or used the Tokina, so I won't make any comments on it since I have no 1st hand experience. My copy of the Sigma (which I had bought used here) was just as good as the rented 10-22 (both were very impressive). It was very sharp, and was not suspect to any of the soft focus areas that have been reported. I used it for the stereotypical UWA shot as well as some up close stuff (the MFD is such you can just about have a subject touch the hood) when I wanted some fun with perspective and distortion. I did not find it needed to be stopped down to get cleaner images, whereas a Sigma 8-16 I rented did.

Interesting.

I must say that a lot of the photos in the Sigma thread are exceptionally great.