Has anyone used a Tokina 11-16 2.8

Hi there, has anyone tried the Tokina 11-16 2.8 if so how does it compare to the sigma 10-20mm ? Thanks in advance.

Hi

I think this link will be helpful
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=527176

my best

Thanks for that, very helpfull. (note to self look on the forum before asking a question!) Looks like a 11-16 maybe in the pipeline.

get the new version

photozone.de tests will show the difference in IQ.

Tokina 11-16 on 8MPixel APS-C format camera http://www.photozone.d​e …ina_1116_28_can​on?start=1
Sigma 10-20 on 8MPixel camera http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1

Unfortunately photozone.de does not have a test of the Sigma on 15Mpxiel body, to compare with the Tokina on 15Mpixel body. On 8Mpixel body, the difference is not a significant one, other than greater barrel distorion in the Tokina at widest FL.

I have the mk1 version. Its a great lens but does have its "quirks". Its sharp but it flares a lot and fairly easily. Its built great and a lot of fun to use. Its not hard to protect from lens flares with your hand (because like I said, it will flare pretty easily).
The mkii should be lighter and smaller, not that the mki is huge, but if they can cut down on the flaring it should be an even better version of a really fun lens. I would purchase an 11-18 again.

Scapevision wrote in post #15229886
get the new version

Why?

All it has is a different coating on the front element that ever so slightly reduces flaring...it doesn't eliminate it, just slightly reduces it, the lens is still a flare monster. Everything else is the same.

If you can get a good deal on a second hand version 1, go with that and just be careful with your framing...always keep in mind that this lens will likely flare more than any other you've ever used.

Thanks for all the comments.

I own the 11-16 and I only ever use it for wide-field astro shots. For everything else the Canon 10-22 is as good, or better.

A lot of people here have used one or the other of these two lenses, among others... But you need to be aware that there are multiple versions of each...

The Tokina 11-16/2.8 has been updated. Supposedly, it's gotten better coatings in the newest Canon version, which might be useful preventing or reducing flare. The biggest difference is in the Nikon verion, where an AF motor has been added so the lens can auto focus on some of the Nikon cameras that don't have a focus drive motor (i.e., cheaper Nikon camera models that require "AF-S" type lenses to be able to AF).

Changes to the lens in other mounts, all of which already had AF drive motors built in, are much more minor. According to Tokina, the "Mark II" version got some improved coatings. It also might be that they simply homologated their manufacturing. With the first version it used to be that the much higher price of the Pentax mount version of the 12-24 sibling lens was attributed to "better coatings". Now perhaps they've simply using the same elements and coatings in all mount versions... In other words, all of them are getting the same, "better" coatings.

The thing you have to ask yourself with this lens is if you really, really need f2.8 on an ultrawide. If you do, fine... But most people probably don't. With an ultrawide you'll seldom see shallow depth of field effects, at least not to a very useful degree. So that leaves low light usage, and a wide lens can be handheld pretty easily already at very low shutter speeds, plus cameras are capable of higher and higher usable ISOs. To get f2.8 on this lens, the only ultrawide offering it, you essentially give up a lot of focal length range and pay a higher price.

For example, the Tokina 12-24/4 is very similar in many respects, but by going to f4 max aperture you get a lot more focal length range.... a full 2X (compared to a 1.45X). The 12-24/4 also costs about $100 US less and is more flare resistant... I think it's second only to the Canon in optical performance and flare resistance. (It's also currently in its second version, again with improved coatings in the Canon mount version.)

Also, the Toki 11-16/2.8 is known to be a bit prone to flare. Flare is always a concern with an ultrawide, because with the wide angle of view you are more likely to have situations where an image includes some bright light source. No doubt it's the extra large aperture that makes this lens even more prone to flare. You can deal with flare some of the time by slightly changing your positioning. And it's not always a negastive factor in an image, might even be useful and interesting. Some people love the 11-16mm in spite of it's propensity for flare... Others find it unusable.

Both the Tokina ultrawides are somewhat unusual among this type lens, having non-variable apertures. This may or may not matter to a buyer. Someone using manual flash or studio strobes might find a variable aperture zoom a pain in the arse. Most folks, using TTL metered flash or shooting without flash might never notice any difference. (Note: recently Sigma has begun offering a non-variable aperture lens too... a 10-20mm f3.5... see below.)

The Sigma 10-20mm actually comes in two versions The cheaper one has a variable f4-5.6 aperture, and is in it's 2nd or 3rd revision. There is also an f3.5 non-variable aperture version that's considerably more expensive. Both have HSM (Sigma's version of USM). The Siggy 10-20 with variable aperture is one of the least expensive UWA lenses. The one with f3.5 is one of the more expensive, but not as expensive as the Canon 10-22.

The Canon 10-22 is unusually flare resistant, the most flare resistant of any the UWA lenses. It's an all-around fine lens optically, but is about the most expensive, lenshood is sold separately (OEM hood isn't inexpensive, but there are some good 3rd party clones avail. for less), and some of the third party UWA lenses feel better built. However, build quality may be merely perception and materials (the Tokinas are built like L-series)... there don't seem to be any durability problems with the Canon 10-22 in spite of more plastic used in it's construction. It's about typical build quality and materials for a Canon USM "mid-grade" lens.

Sigma also offers an 8-16mm, the widest lens in this category. Lots of inherent wide angle distortion, but that's to be expected with such a super wide lens. Another drawback to such a wide lens, it has a domed front element, so a filter cannot be easily fitted. It has a permanently fixed, built-in lens hood.

The Tamron 10-24mm is the widest range of focal lengths in a single UWA lens. It's one of the least expensive of the UWA. Some report it's a little soft at the longer end of the zoom.

Finally, Sigma also offers a 12-24 with a variable aperture. This is actually a full frame capable lens... the widest one available from any manufacturer. It's expensive and has got a lot of inherent distortion effects, but goes wider than any other lens available (short of a fisheye). It has a domed front element, so a filter cannot be easily fitted. It has a built-in, permanently fixed lens hood.

In summary, you can choose among:

Sigma 8-16mm......... $650 US (currently with $50 discount)
Sigma 10-20/3.5...... $600 US (currently with $50 discount)
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6... $480 US
Canon 10-22mm....... $740 (currently with $120 instant rebate) + $32 lens hood (sold separately)
Tamron 10-24mm...... $450 US (currently with $50 rebate)
Tokina 11-16/2.8.... $600 US
Tokina 12-24/4........ $500 US
Sigma 12-24............ $950 US

I doubt many people have used them all, so they can compare for you. Several years ago after trying the two Tokina, the Canon, the Tamron and earlier version of the Sigma 10-20 with variable aperture... I bought the first version of the Tokina 12-24mm and am still using it. I don't plan to upgrade to the second version now available and really only consider the Canon as a possible alternative.

Thanks amfoto 1, that was great . Will have to get out and try the Tokina 12-24.

paul-t wrote in post #15235045
Thanks amfoto 1, that was great . Will have to get out and try the Tokina 12-24.

I used to have the 12-24 and liked it. But sure like the 11-16mm by Tokina even more. I sold my first to get my 60D, but in a matter of months had to get another 11-16. The photos below were taken with it. I shoot forest and a little bit with people using the UWA.

Seems that when I use that lens, its for the widest range of the lense. So for anything past 14mm to 16mm, I almost go with my Tamron or Canon and shoot past 24mm. May end up adding a Sigma or Canon UWA though for the 5D Mk II recently acquired, because the Tokina is not tailored for it.

The lens same archives in the forums may be your best bet to compare how photos turn out, whether the Sigma or the Tokina. I have not used the Sigma, but find the color very nice with the Tokina at least.