Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 vs Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 Review

[Deleted member 4644]

The following images were taken with a Nikon D90 set to vivid and sharpening 5. It was on a Manfrotto tripod with a Cullman Magnesit 30 ballhead, indoors. The images were lit with a Nikon SB-600 flash and an incandescent light bulb in a fairly dark room. The leaf was in the center of the frame with the focal point near its highest tip @ 18 inches from the lens.


I will let the images speak for themselves. 100% crops from RAW using NX 2.0.

nikon16mm2.8.jpg
tokina16mm2.8.jpg

nikon16mm5.0.jpg
tokina16mm5.0.jpg

nikon16mm8.0.jpg
tokina16mm8.0.jpg

My conclusions:

1) The Tokina has consistently lighter exposures than the Nikon images. The Tokina even blows out parts of the images that are not blown out with the Nikon. The Tokina images have substantially less noise however.

2) The Nikon is clearly a little bit sharper at f2.8, but the images are almost the same at f5 and f8.

 

[PurdueRy]

I'm not sure why we're comparing a 11-16 to a 14-24...those are fairly different ranges. Yes, you're using the same focal length but that doesn't mean that's the ideal focal length for each. On one your using the farthest extreme. On the other you're backed off a bit from the widest.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I'm not sure why we're comparing a 11-16 to a 14-24...those are fairly different ranges. Yes, you're using the same focal length but that doesn't mean that's the ideal focal length for each. On one your using the farthest extreme. On the other you're backed off a bit from the widest.

eh.. I guess. They are the two best wide angle lenses available for Nikon DX digital format.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I'm not sure why we're comparing a 11-16 to a 14-24...those are fairly different ranges. Yes, you're using the same focal length but that doesn't mean that's the ideal focal length for each. On one your using the farthest extreme. On the other you're backed off a bit from the widest.

eh.. I guess. They are the two best wide angle lenses available for Nikon DX digital format.

Some interesting comparison images, but a few problems exist here:

First, the 14-24 is almost never used for DX format...it's much more commonly fount attached to a D3 or D700, because it's not really an "ultrawide" on DX. In that respect, the Tokina (and other lenses like the Nikkor 10-24) are better than the 14-24 for DX use. By testing the 14-24 on DX, you're not able to test its sharpness in the corners on FF, because your camera's sensor doesn't need as large of an image circle.

Also it might be better to test both lenses at their widest settings since that's where an UWA is most often used. Nobody buys an 11-16 or 14-24 to use the 16 or 24mm ends of either lens, and sharpness can change noticeably across the zoom range of even a 1.5x zoom like the Tokina.

 

[soydios]

can you post shots at, say, 11mm f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8? then again at 13mm?

I'm quite interested in the Tokina 11-16mm lens; I want to buy it before I go on a Europe trip this summer, but I was waiting for DPReview to do reviews on all the wideangle lenses.

Plus I can't find the 11-16mm in stock.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: soydios
can you post shots at, say, 11mm f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8? then again at 13mm?

I'm quite interested in the Tokina 11-16mm lens; I want to buy it before I go on a Europe trip this summer, but I was waiting for DPReview to do reviews on all the wideangle lenses.

Plus I can't find the 11-16mm in stock.

I borrowed the lens from my friend and took a few shots on my Xti. To say the least I did like what I saw and the construction of the lens is very good. Here are some sample pics from the few shots I was able to try out. Not the best examples, it was done rather quickly.


Tokina lens

 

[theYipster]

I agree that its an odd and perhaps misleading comparison. The Tokina 11-16 is certainly one of the best wide angle lenses available on a crop camera -- and really the only option for 2.8 optics. The 14-24 however, is a totally different animal. It's not just that the range is different or that 14-24 isn't that wide on DX -- it's that you're really only testing the full ability of one camera here (the Tokina.) Try a 14-24 on a D700 or D3 so you can compare the distortion and corner sharpness of both (for which wide angles are often scrutinized over.) The 14-24, despite it's size, cost, and inability to accept filters, is well regarded as the sharpest, most contrasty wide angle zoom ever made corner to corner, besting all of Nikon and Canon's primes in overlapping focal lengths at any aperture.

The Tokina on the other hand is marvelous for its size, weight, and cost. At 11mm, it isn't at wide as the competition starting at 10mm, (although 14mm on a full frame is wider than 10mm or 11mm on a crop) but nothing else offers a wide 2.8 max aperture for a DX crop (which can be useful for those dramatic interior shots of dark churches.) Overall, both are excellent options but server different purposes and are designed to be used with very different setups.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Adul

Originally posted by: soydios
can you post shots at, say, 11mm f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8? then again at 13mm?

I'm quite interested in the Tokina 11-16mm lens; I want to buy it before I go on a Europe trip this summer, but I was waiting for DPReview to do reviews on all the wideangle lenses.

Plus I can't find the 11-16mm in stock.

I borrowed the lens from my friend and took a few shots on my Xti. To say the least I did like what I saw and the construction of the lens is very good. Here are some sample pics from the few shots I was able to try out. Not the best examples, it was done rather quickly.


Tokina lens

I think your white balance was set wrong...

 

[yllus]

I really need to get around to picking up a Tokina 11-16mm now that I've sold my Sigma 10-20mm. Is B & H keeping it in stock these days? I'm going to run down to NYC to get it later in the year.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: yllus
I really need to get around to picking up a Tokina 11-16mm now that I've sold my Sigma 10-20mm. Is B & H keeping it in stock these days? I'm going to run down to NYC to get it later in the year.

every time I look (at least for canon mount), it seems to not be in stock anywhere but ebay overseas. Actually, recently, just about anything I look for is rarely in stock lens wise.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: yllus
I really need to get around to picking up a Tokina 11-16mm now that I've sold my Sigma 10-20mm. Is B & H keeping it in stock these days? I'm going to run down to NYC to get it later in the year.

every time I look (at least for canon mount), it seems to not be in stock anywhere but ebay overseas. Actually, recently, just about anything I look for is rarely in stock lens wise.

They just switched over to version II of this lens. It will likely take a bit to get production up to meet demand.

 

[deanx0r]

I have the 14-24mm here. I personally hate that lens. Too heavy, too big. And F2.8 is not fast enough for handheld night shots. If you are a local to Denver, I am getting rid of it

 

[iGas]

Poor attempt at orange vs. apple comparison (ultra wide vs. normal wide)

KenRockwell.com have a good review on the Tokina 11-16mm. And, Tokina 11-16mm walk all over the Nikkor 12-24mm.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: deanx0r
I have the 14-24mm here. I personally hate that lens. Too heavy, too big. And F2.8 is not fast enough for handheld night shots. If you are a local to Denver, I am getting rid of it

really?

 

[deanx0r]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644

Originally posted by: deanx0r
I have the 14-24mm here. I personally hate that lens. Too heavy, too big. And F2.8 is not fast enough for handheld night shots. If you are a local to Denver, I am getting rid of it

really?

Really as I am selling or I hate this lens?

Selling it, yes. Only to local buyers tho. With something that expensive, I don't want to ship it. The thing is in mint condition with the box and warranty card blank. I have maybe a couple hundred actuations or less on this thing.

As far as hating it, I originally bought this lens with the plan to jump on the FX bandwagon. And I decided against it because the quality and low ISO performance FX offers do not outweigh the luggage it comes with as far as weight, practicality, price and value.

-Like I mentioned earlier, it's big, heavy, and extremely imposing. I didn't take that much in consideration when I bought it, but it does take its toll on your body after you've been shooting for several hours.

-F2.8 is not fast enough for handheld night shots. I still get shaky pictures with it, and the weight of that thing doesn't help. I constantly have to pull out my F1.4 lens to be able to shoot at night, around F2.0.

-Picture quality. This is very debatable issue. Yes, this thing is amazing when it comes to sharpness wide open. But between this lens and and say a 16-85mm, there isn't much of a difference in picture quality after the photos go through my post processing workflow. Both will be amazingly sharp, the 14-24mm sharper, but can you tell? Nope...

 

[Deleted member 4644]

I have family that live in Denver, PM me you asking price..

 

[deanx0r]

LOL, if you intend to buy it, I probably gave you the worst sale pitch
PMed.

 

[shocksyde]

I went from a Sigma 10-20 to a Tokina 11-16 (Canon mounts) and am extremely happy with the Tokina. Awesomely sharp lens.