Tokina 11-16 2.8 or Sigma 20mm 1.8

I am looking towards the POTN community for your expertise. I currently have a 70D and mostly take landscape/travel photography. My current gear is in my signature, but I also have a Tamron 70-200 2.8 coming in the mail next week. I've been looking at selling my Sigma 20/1.8 and replacing it with the Tokina 11-16. I don't think I'll lose out too much with this trade, maybe even draw even.

I bought the 20/1.8 on a whim, because I had just finished taking some pics of my friend's kid party, and my 15-85 was not up to the task as it's slow(er) and the kids were running around too quickly. I thought I needed a fast prime for the odd occasion I'm taking portrait/kids gatherings. After buying it, I find that I don't use it much, and when I do, I stop down to f2.8 anyways because @ 1.8, it was too soft. Since my interest is mostly landscape/travel, would it make more sense to trade it in for a 11-16 2.8? I've looked at the photo archive, and saw some good portrait/party type pictures with the 11-16. With this trade, I would also be able to into the UWA range and not have overlapping range like the 20mm and 15-85mm. Ughh, I just can't decide, I'm open to any suggestions/opinions.

Budget wise, I'm also willing to put in an extra $500 on top of the trade-in for the 20mm if there are better lens suggestions.

Thank you!

My research (not experience, yet) has landed me on this Tokina, plus the Sigma 18-35 1.8. The Sig only yields 29mm on the wide end, so the Tokina is for UWA, and both appear to be phenomenal. The 18-35 is a game-changer at 1.8 fixed aperture on a zoom.

Can't speak to the 20 1.8, but I love my 11-16. Here are two shots wide open at 16mm from my 7D. I always swap to this lens from my 70-200 after our soccer games. The wide perspective distortion makes it a great "fun" lens for capturing parties and kids.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/sporadic/112414​78203

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/sporadic/112414​77743

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/sporadic/391421​9926

I have a Tokina. It is a very good lens. Really a "pseudo-prime" lens The new version is supposedly lighter and smaller (if that matters). Don't know if it is optically the same, because the Tokina is NOT afraid to flare! You can control it with positioning or even your hand/hat, but know that flaring is something it is not afraid to do

Consider the Sigma 18-35 1.8 as well. Very good lens. But that is more to complement the 11-16 rather than replace it.

However, if landscape and travel, I would recommend the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 over the Tokina 11-16, because you don't really need the 2.8 aperture for landscape or travel, and I personally find that having a bigger zoom range is far more useful for these two types of photography than a faster aperture.

Tokina 11-16 is an excellent lens.

However it is also a specialty lens -- it's focal range is very limited.

I just sold my copy locally as I seldom used it when I had my T1i only. I used 17-55 most of the time with the crop body.

Sirrith wrote in post #16507360
Consider the Sigma 18-35 1.8 as well. Very good lens. But that is more to complement the 11-16 rather than replace it.

However, if landscape and travel, I would recommend the Canon 10-22 or Sigma 10-20 over the Tokina 11-16, because you don't really need the 2.8 aperture for landscape or travel, and I personally find that having a bigger zoom range is far more useful for these two types of photography than a faster aperture.

Perhaps, but the Tokina is fixed-aperture as well as being cheaper. Plus it smoked the 10-22 in the dxo tests, for what that's worth. (AND CHEAPER! )

I don't think I'd be considering the 18-35 right now, I love the range of the 15-85 as a general walkaround lens too much.

The Tokina 11-16 though.. that's definitely on the table. I'm going to another kid party tomorrow so I'll use the 20mm and see what limitations I find with it. Then try to put it up on sale and see what prices I can get for it.

sporadic wrote in post #16506862
Can't speak to the 20 1.8, but I love my 11-16. Here are two shots wide open at 16mm from my 7D. I always swap to this lens from my 70-200 after our soccer games. The wide perspective distortion makes it a great "fun" lens for capturing parties and kids.

Great pics! It looks plenty sharp even at 2.8.

BrickR wrote in post #16507079
I have a Tokina. It is a very good lens. Really a "pseudo-prime" lens The new version is supposedly lighter and smaller (if that matters). Don't know if it is optically the same, because the Tokina is NOT afraid to flare! You can control it with positioning or even your hand/hat, but know that flaring is something it is not afraid to do

Hmm... the v1 version is $100 cheaper then v2 right now at B&H. I'll have to research to see if there's a big difference between the two.

Alnitak wrote in post #16507472
Perhaps, but the Tokina is fixed-aperture as well as being cheaper. Plus it smoked the 10-22 in the dxo tests, for what that's worth. (AND CHEAPER! )

Fixed aperture doesn't matter much for those 2 types of photography, and the Tokina does not "smoke" the 10-22 in real world use at all

But yes, it is cheaper and a bit sharper and does go 2.8. But it is only 11-16. And it has worse CA, distortion and flare control.

I recommend the 11-16 for astrophotography or mainly indoor low light use. I recommend the 10-22 for everything else.

I tried out the Canon 10-22mm and the Tokina 11-16mm at Calumet photo about 4 years ago. When I examined the photos back at the house, the Tokina had slightly better IQ than the Canon. I bought the Tokina the next day and never regretted it. The biggest difference was the build. The Tokina had a very solid build, like a good Canon L lens would have. The Canon's build was like a toy in comparison. Don't get me wrong, the Canon is a good lens with a wider focal range which can come in handy.

Sirrith wrote in post #16507495
Fixed aperture doesn't matter much for those 2 types of photography, and the Tokina does not "smoke" the 10-22 in real world use at all

But yes, it is cheaper and a bit sharper and does go 2.8. But it is only 11-16. And it has worse CA, distortion and flare control.

I recommend the 11-16 for astrophotography or mainly indoor low light use. I recommend the 10-22 for everything else.

Like somebody said further up, I plan to have both the Tokina and the Sig 18-35. I think those two lenses covering 11-35mm will make an untouchable combo for the wide-to-normal range (18-56mm aps-s realized FL). I can't wait!

I absolutely love the combination of my 11-16 and 15-85. Those two have been my motorbike trip set up for the last year, and the Tok has been a phenomenal uwa. It's super sharp, built really well, and I like the f/2.8 for night/starscapes and some indoor photography as well.

I played with the 10-22 as well and it was a great lens with it's larger focal range. I would have gone with either, but a Tok came up for sale at a great price locally. Picked it up and have been super happy.

The Tokina 11-16 is a fantastic lens...2.8 AND the sharpest lens available in the genre. Nothing better! Miss this lens the most when moving to FF.