Tokina vs Sigma

[Jimm]

I originally posted this in a diff. location but have had no response. Still don't know if this is the right place or not but here goes. The Tokina ll-16 is avail. at 2.8 and the Sigma 10-20 at 3.5, price is about the same. Which would you find more important, the zoom range or the 2.8. It will be used on a D7000 Nikon primarily for landscape type shots but also for whatever pops up. Thanks for your help. Oh by the way I did a search on DPS and found nothing regarding this question.

[Bruce A]

Well I can vouch for the quality of the Tokina and I think the extra stop would be more important to me, but your criteria may not require it. It certainly gets rave reviews. I have no experience with the Sigma.

[ravncat]

WEll, that depends on what and how you are shooting and what you are looking for.

There's not a whole lot of depth of field difference between 2.8 and 3.5 when you're in the superwide angle world - so the reason for the extra stop is because you need the extra light. The d7000 has pretty good high iso - so that 2/3rds or so a stop difference aren't terribly important.

The 11-16 is heavier and larger than the 10-20. (That being said, I prefer the tokina's build quality) So - do you need the 2.8 for anything? Would the range be more valuable to you? Are you worried about how much weight you take into the field?

The tokina also has more chromatic abberation issues than the sigma - and a cooler color cast. The sigma has worse distortion and a warmer color cast. Where do you want to spend your time in post processing?

They're booth good choices - the only way to know which one is better is to know how you are going to use it.

(full disclosure, I have the 11-16 , i've used the older sigma 10-20 but not the newer f 3.5 one - I went with the 11-16 because I like to do lots of handheld low light work)

[oldwolf]

I'd go with the zoom range.

I say this because you'll be mostly outside shooting landscapes and the Sigma is wider on the low end.

edit: I do love Tokina lens though. Have a 50-135mm f/2.8 and the glass is pretty sharp.

[DanielLane]

I have used them both. I have the Tokina and my boss has the Sigma. The images taken with the Tokina are notably sharper images. The chromatic aberrations are easy to fix in a few seconds in photoshop. The extra stop to 2.8 is nice if you are shooting anything like I do in the Jungle (or forest of course) where you need that little extra light. The zoom difference between 16 and 20 is not that much so won't make a whole lot of difference.

[OsmosisStudios]

There's another version of the sigma (f/4-5.5-6) thats actually optically better at the edges and corners.

[MattG]

I have the older Sigma version (f4-5.6). Optically fantastic and the range is useful. The build quality is top drawer as it is an EX range lens. I have fallen in love with this lens. You wouldn't regret buying this lens (the older Sigma version).

[SwissJon]

Tokina.. Sharpest lens I own. So good in fact, I've had two.

Don't know what the Sigma's like, but if you want a REALLY sharp lens, go for the Tokina.

My second Tokina is the 12-24 which is just as sharp but not as fast.. I found the Zoom range more useable. But then 12mm is 20% more than 10mm.. You've got quite a bit wider on the Sigma..

All depends on what you're after doing with the lens, but I'm very happy with both Tokina's I owned, the 12-24 being more useful since I can attach it to my camera and go out shooting with a single lens, with the 11-16, you can't beat it on sharpness, but the zoom range (and the same for the 10-20) means you're going to want to carry a second lens.

[StillFocus]

I like the "I have this so it's better even though I've never tried the other" vibe we've got going in this thread. Makes me feel better for all the times when I do the same thing.

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by StillFocus

I like the "I have this so it's better even though I've never tried the other" vibe we've got going in this thread. Makes me feel better for all the times when I do the same thing.

I really can't give you an opinion on something I've never tried, and the OP didn't as just for opinions of people who tried both..

I can tell you that I considered and rejected the Sigma when considering lenses for Landscape.. It wasn't the speed that convinced me, it was the sharpness, I looked at several reviews where the two were pitted against each other, and the Tokina won easily eery time.. I must have spent 2 or 3 days solid reading reviews of these two, as well as others, before settling on the Tokina.. Twice.. Once for a Sony A55 and once for my Nikon D7000.

To be honest, having decided on the Tokina 12-24 for my D7000, I think that should be what the OP opts for.. Unless he specfically needs the 10-12mm range, the 12-24 is a lot more useable, and the lens is just as sharp as the 11-16.. Speed isn't really important on a wide angle landscape shot.. Sharpness is.. And the 12-24 has a much more useable range.