Why is the tokina 11-16 worth $250 more?...

..than the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 in your opinion ?

I know everyone raves about the Tokina and I'm tempted too but just to play the devil's advocate:

The Sigma has some QC issues fro sure but assuming you get a sharp copy the IQ is pretty great (maybe the tokina is a bit sharper).

The build quality of the Siggy, its sturdy just like the Tokina

The Siggy has a wider zoom, so its definitely the more versatile

Assuming this is going to be used to shoot landscapes and non-fast moving things most of the time and considering most semi-serious photographers have a decent tripod I really don't see much of an advantage in having a "fast" wide angle lens. I mean, it would make more sense for a telephoto if I was shooting sports but I do all my low light landscapes with long exposures and tripod ... and from what I've seen of the Sigma (KenjiS's gallery below) with tripod the results are not shabby at all.

http://kenjis9965.devi​antart.com/gallery/


So....... (ends long-winded post) my question is (I do have one ) why would one not pick up a sharp used Siggy for $350 rather than drop $600 on the Tokina ?

people that shoot landscape with tripods probably would get siggy... available light photographers that do not use tripod would prefer tokina IMO

It's a constant f/2.8. That alone makes it more. and from all I have seen and read (from key members on this board) it is definitely worth it.

That's like saying why is the 16-35 F/2.8 L over $500 more than the 17-40 F/4 L. Fast lenses of any focal length can be very useful.

That said, the Sigma 10-22 is a very good competitor to the Canon 10-22.

Could I ask which Sigma everyone is on about?

I own the Sigma 10-20 and I'm aware of the Sigma 12-24, but I've not seen the Sigma 10-22 ~ I would appreciate a link if someone has one.

Thank You

oops sorry Dork Knight I meant the 10-20

Ah, thanks.

I wondered if there was a new lens that I couldn't find.

I guess I fall into bestfromnw's first category... will go with the Siggy and pick up a Canon 85mm 1.8 also with the budget I had for the Tokina... oh well doesn't look like I can ever keep that money in the pocket either way

radlux wrote in post #6951435
I guess I fall into bestfromnw's first category... will go with the Siggy and pick up a Canon 85mm 1.8 also with the budget I had for the Tokina... oh well doesn't look like I can ever keep that money in the pocket either way

Good choice, I love my Sigma 10-20. Has served me well both at home and abroad.

(Cue the pic whorage!:o:o)

Did you see the test results at Photozone.de for the Tokina 11-16? Wow.

well, for one thing, you're comparing a used sigma to a new Tokina. Looking at new prices, there's only a $150 difference between the two. That $150 gets you constant f2.8 and better sharpness across the board. If you're only going to be shooting stopped down landscapes on a tripod though, then the Sigma should be a fine choice and you'll save a bit of money. I went with the Tokina because I do sometimes handhold in low light and because I got a great price on it using the live.com discount when it was still around.

The tokina 11-16 is amazing. I love it so very much.

Mine was only $119 more than the Sigma.

i was in the same situation, stuck between sigma, tokina, and canon... but did some searching and found many bad reviews about the sigma...alot of them had side by side comparison w/the canon 10-22mm and the tokina 11-16...in both instances the lens distortion and clarity/IQ of the pics were obviously less in the sigma...it was also obvious with the sample pics shown...i do know many sigma 10-20mm owners and they seem to have no problems with it though...