Tokina or Tamron wide angle lens ??

mrandersen

Hello out there in Nikon Rumors Forum.
I am using a D7100 (before a D5100) A big jump up in quality camera.
I am looking for a new wide angle lens. I don't want to spend money on a Nikon wide angle lens.
I saw there is Tokina, Tamron and Sigma.
I don't what to choice, would like to hear some advice here.
Best regards.

PB_PM

What do you intend to take photos of? Interiors, landscapes, something else? Also depends on how wide you want to go, and whether you are looking at full frame or DX format lenses.

DX Format: Unless you plan to go full frame in the future these options are cheaper

The cheapest wide angle DX format lens is the Nikon AF-P 10-20mm. The Tamron 10-24mm VC, and Tokina 10-17mm fish-eye, Tokina 11-20mm are about the same price as each other. On the high price side is the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8, but that's not a super wide angle, if that is what you are looking for.

Some variance in performance, since some of these lenses have old optical designs. The newest of the bunch in the Nikon AF-P.

Full Frame: If you plan on going full frame in the future, spend the extra cash for a FF lens now

Tokina 16-28mm F2 Pro FX

Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 VC

Sigma 12-24mm F2.8 DC (basically in the same price range as the Nikon 14-24mm)

Performance of most of these lenses are very close. It comes down to what lens is going to cover the focal range you want.

retread

I have a Tokina 11-20 and am happy with it. I started with a D5100 and then moved to a D500. The 11-16 is said to be just as good and a little less money. I plan to also shoot FX when the time comes so am getting FX glass except at the wider end. I also have a Sigma 11-17 DX but all else is FX glass.

Remember if you get FX glass to multiply the focal length by 1.5 to get the DX equivalent. The FX glass is not as wide on a DX as it is on a FX camera which is why I went with DX glass on the wide end. The widest FX I have is a 24-70 so when I do get a FX body I may get a wider FX lens if I think I need wider than 24.

decentrist

Tamron 10-24mm VC is optically the best of the DX bunch.

WestEndFoto

I would look carefully at the new Nikon. It is reasonably priced and very good quality. Read this review:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-10-20mm-dx-vr-af-p

Since you have a D7100, read the section on compatibility carefully.

Pistnbroke

you did not say what you call wide. for me on DX 10mm is wide but remember when you drop from 20mm to 10mm you put 4x the picture area on the sensor so dont go pixel peeping too much. This is the main reason I changed to D810 with 15 mm Samyang.

Sports

.... said:

... if you get FX glass to multiply the focal length by 1.5 to get the DX equivalent.

This applies to DX glass as well. It's the sensor that implies the multiplication. It's not a question of DX lens vs. FX lens.
A 12 mm DX lens results in the same image as a 12 mm FX lens, it's just smaller and cheaper, most likely.
(With a D7100, all lenses should be multiplied by 1.5.)

retread

A 24mm DX lens on a DX camera has the same image size as a 24mm FX lens on a FX camera. A 24mm FX lens on a DX camera has the same image area as a 36mm DX lens as the smaller DX sensor only uses the center of the FX image area.

If you put a DX lens on a FX camera it will not fill the full image area of the FX sensor as the image circle is too small.

Therefore using a FX lens on a DX camera the 1.5 multiplying factor is needed to determine what is captured on the smaller DX sensor.

mrandersen

Well it be mostly landscape, shooting stars and buildings.

WestEndFoto

The 10-20 is perfect for that.

PB_PM

Agreed, get the Nikon AF-P 10-20.

Capt_Spaulding

retread said:

A 24mm DX lens on a DX camera has the same image size as a 24mm FX lens on a FX camera. A 24mm FX lens on a DX camera has the same image area as a 36mm DX lens as the smaller DX sensor only uses the center of the FX image area.

Forgive me if I misunderstand your point, but are you sure about this? Unless I am mistaken, the actual focal length of the lens is an optical construct independent of the sensor area. What we call a "crop factor" is, more or less, an arbitrary concept intended to provide a familiar frame of reference for understanding the impact that sensor size has on images using a 35mm frame as a benchmark.

I no longer have any DX lenses, but when I did, my 18-55 at 50mm on my D7200 gave exactly the same image in the VF as my 50mm FX lens mounted on the D7200. Which is to say both VF images appeared as a 75mm lens would appear through my D610.

Sports

Capt_Spaulding said:

Unless I am mistaken ...

You're not mistaken, but thousands if not millions of others are, and the mistake will never go away.
It's the SENSOR (not the lens) that "demands" the multiplication.

HankB

Sounds like everyone is saying the same thing in a different way. The lens focal length determines the size of the image projected on the sensor; but obviously, the smaller the sensor, the larger the percentage of that sensor will be covered by that same size image.

If we pretend the "full frame" D850 and the "cropped frame" D500 had exactly the same pixel density (the real densities of the two cameras are very close), a picture from the D850 which you then crop down to equal the D500's 20 or so mega-pixels (2/3 by 2/3 of the full frame size) would be virtually identical to a photo taken on the D500 with the same lens.

Hiker

I bought a Tokina 11-20 f2.8 on B & H's deal of the day over a year ago. Nice sharp lens. Something needed to shoot Horseshoe Bend, and for the first time, I was able to get the entire Meteor Crater in without using the panoramic option on the then D3300. The other day I shot an unknown Canyon in norther AZ and captured the entire view with the Tokina.

retread

HankB said:

Sounds like everyone is saying the same thing in a different way. The lens focal length determines the size of the image projected on the sensor; but obviously, the smaller the sensor, the larger the percentage of that sensor will be covered by that same size image.

If we pretend the "full frame" D850 and the "cropped frame" D500 had exactly the same pixel density (the real densities of the two cameras are very close), a picture from the D850 which you then crop down to equal the D500's 20 or so mega-pixels (2/3 by 2/3 of the full frame size) would be virtually identical to a photo taken on the D500 with the same lens.

Exactly...

mrandersen

Ok thanks for all the respons. Well I am still in DX format right now. Just ant to hear if somebody has tried the two lens.

7pilot

I have had great luck with my non-motorized Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 on my D7100. It's rectilinear rather than fisheye. It can have CA near the edges, But the lens correction in Photoshop CC takes care of that. It's a well built, solid feeling lens.

spraynpray

To clarify further the DX/FX conversation above, DX lenses are made to throw a smaller image circle onto the sensor plane which makes them cheaper to make and lighter. Less of a 14mm FX lens image circle is used than a 14mm DX's when used on a DX body, and the edge distortion of an image from an FX lens on a DX body will be better than that of a DX lens on a DX body due to the DX body (sensor) using the sweet spot in the centre of the FX lens. Both images angle of view will be 21mm equivalent when compared to a 14mm FX lens on an FX body image.

Incidentally, you shouldn't use an ultra-wide angle lens to 'get more in' as you say above - far better to stitch a pano using a longer lens because you are getting severe edge distortion on the ultra-wide image which you don't get with a stitched pano using a longer lens, plus you are often cropping off the unwanted sky and foreground to end up with a letterbox crop. Ultra-wide lenses are used for their particular perspective look.

That said, this is a useful thread for those of us looking for the best UW lens. I had a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 myself - it was a very good lens for normal photography, although the aberrations were pretty poor when there were stars in the shot.

HankB

I have a Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 which I believe performs pretty much like Tokina’s 11-16. While I very much enjoy using the ultra-wide, do consider:

• Focus ring slides forward and backward to switch between auto focus only mode and manual focus only mode. That makes only a minimal difference in handling if you use back button focus, but if you don't, you could possibly hate, or maybe love, that system.
  
• One of the big selling features is the fast f2.8 across the entire zoom range. But after using the lens for a while, I realize that for me, I really don't find the extra speed to be of practical benefit at such short focal lengths.
  
• Casual comparison (not pixel peeking) of shots at the longer end of the Tokina 11-20 zoom with those from the overlapping short end of my Nikon 16-80mm sometimes do show the optical superiority of the Nikon 16-80. But does that mean other ultra-wides would also be noticeably sharper?
  

I don't mean to be just negative, but the positives of this lens have already been mentioned in this thread. I do enjoy using the Tokina and have no intentions of replacing it.

Hiker

When I shoot Horseshoe Bend or Meteor Crater, and recently Coal Mine Canyon in AZ, 16mm, 24mm crop equivalent was not anywhere near wide enough. I find myself shooting at 12mm with the Tokina. I don't use that lens nearly enough. But find it necessary for those just in case times. I never have had to use the manual focus on the Tokina. And I never shoot that lens wide open!