p.1 #1 · Side by Side: Tokina 11-16mm vs. Sigma 10-20mm
So I bought a Tokina 11-16mm for the speed and still had my Sigma 10-20mm so I decided to give them a little comparison for people in the market. The camera used was a Nikon D90 at ISO200 on a 055XPROB tripod with 488RC2 ballhead. 2 second timer with exposure delay mode (MLU). Focus was on the golden light on the porch but everything is going to be in focus anyways. I refocused center point AF-S when changing focal lengths but not apertures.
Conclusions:
The Sigma is less prone to chromatic aberrations, has greater range, and is cheaper. Tokina is a fast, constant f/2.8, maybe a tad sharper at the same apertures. Keeping the Tokina for the fast max aperture for now. I am reluctant to sell the Sigma though as it seems like a great copy. Plus, it's HSM is pretty quiet.
p.1 #2 · Side by Side: Tokina 11-16mm vs. Sigma 10-20mm
Thanks for a very complete write-up. I can see where the Siggie is sharper, but I can also the Sigma warmth as well - not that shooting in RAW doesn't solve that as an issue, but it's certainly easy to see here. Anyway, nice job and it shows why the Sigma has been so popular for so long.
p.1 #4 · Side by Side: Tokina 11-16mm vs. Sigma 10-20mm
firewireguy wrote:
Wow, the corners in the Tokina are awful.
That's an understatement....very surprising. Great work on putting this together
I either think that Tokina has quality control issues that are not discussed nearly as much as Sigma or the reputation of the 11-16 is not warranted. After hearing about how great the 11-16 was I gave it a shot about 1 1/2 yrs ago. I went through 3 different 11-16s expecting greater optics than the 12-24 (Tokina) and each one of them had issues in one way or another. I gave up after 3 tries. I have since moved on to primes and a 16-35 but the 11-16 was not all that it was cracked up to be in my opinion.
p.1 #5 · Side by Side: Tokina 11-16mm vs. Sigma 10-20mm
I don't think the 11-16 reputation is warranted. So many people have complained about the corners on it. I am not sure how it even received such a good reputation in the first place?
p.1 #6 · Side by Side: Tokina 11-16mm vs. Sigma 10-20mm
Honestly, I think the top left corner of my Tokina is a little softer than the others but I wanted that section to show CA. It certainly makes the decision harder but the slower aperture of the Sigma makes me not want to use it at all.
FYI, the 16mm is the actual corner. 11mm corners are a little bit in from the actual corner.
p.1 #7 · Side by Side: Tokina 11-16mm vs. Sigma 10-20mm
The Sigma 10-20 I've got (it's the original, slower one) has always been pretty great. I think it's one of the more underrated lenses out there for sure.
p.1 #8 · Side by Side: Tokina 11-16mm vs. Sigma 10-20mm
Steezus wrote:
I don't think the 11-16 reputation is warranted. So many people have complained about the corners on it. I am not sure how it even received such a good reputation in the first place?
Because people begun to rave about it before it was on the streets, thinking it will be a better 12-24. But it isnīt.
Don forget also that Chuck... err Ken Rockwell compared it to the 14-24 and the result was that on DX it was just as good....
p.1 #11 · Side by Side: Tokina 11-16mm vs. Sigma 10-20mm
Steezus wrote:
I don't think the 11-16 reputation is warranted. So many people have complained about the corners on it. I am not sure how it even received such a good reputation in the first place?
I tested 4 samples here in Seattle at Glazers - 3 of them had outright optical (badly de-centered) or AF issues (would not AF accurately on any camera).
I tried a 4th and it was OK - very sharp in the center (sharper than a 10-24 Nikon at any common focal length), but the corners were just not good at all until you stopped way way down.
This seemed to not coincide with some other images and test reports available.
I suspect there is a lot of sample variation with this lens, so I'm reluctant to get one.
I also am waiting for a non-screw-drive version to come out much like they did with the 12-24/4 Tokina.
