Recently got the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and took these images to check it out and compare it to my Sigma 10-20. Opened the NEF files in Capture NX and set them to neutral with zero sharpening. Shot on a tripod with the timer on for a few seconds; didn't have a remote shutter release. Other than that, they're just resized and saved as JPEGs. Let me know your thoughts. You can click on the images shown for full-res versions (about 3 MB each).













100% crops of the center sections:

Judging be the 100% crops (the only thing that makes sense to me), I can not see a difference really. They must be very close in IQ.

Were these taken hand held? There's basically no difference.

They look about equal in terms of sharpness, but the Sigma definitely has more light falloff in the corners.

The Tokina shows more contrast. The sharpness is very close.

Where is this btw?

I'm looking at the closeness in sharpness as a good thing. My Sigma is one of my favorite lenses, but the f/2.8 of the Tokina makes it interesting, possibly a little more help for low light landscapes and obviously hand held walk around shots. The only negative is the lack of AF capability on the D40, D40x and D60.

Wow I didn't expect it to be this close! Though I still might pawn my sigma off just to get F/2.8. Edge sharpness certainly looks better than my Nikon 14mm F/2.8 did.

Looking at these, the most noticeable thing I see is the light falloff on the Sigma. At the center, they look equally sharp. I do see a bit more sharpness in the edge on the Tokina. Looking at some other ones, it seems the Tokina tends to over-expose a bit, and the Sigma to under-expose. I need to do a couple more runs with the shutter set manually.

These were taken on a tripod, not hand held, on Grizzly Peak Blvd in Oakland overlooking the bay area. On a clear day the Golden Gate would be visible on the horizon.

Elan II wrote:
The Tokina shows more contrast. The sharpness is very close.



+1. guess i'm not going to worry about should i change my tol 12-24 for the 11-16.

ta

Problem is that it was a hazy day, not fair for either lens. Both seem to be good copies. I thinking I'd be shooting at f5.6 to f8 with either lens. Funny there seemed to be more fall off in the corners at f8 with the Sigma than at f4. Nice to see the Tokina had very little fall off.
Adorama dropped their "not in stock" message so I ordered an 11-16, but guess what, the lens is not in stock. Guess I'm in a que for the lens.

Tom

Very interesting thread for me... I have the 10-20 now, and an 11-16 on order. I thought at 11-16 the Tokina would be the perfect compliment to my 17-55 considering the f2.8 potential, but now I'm going to have to re-evaluate the cost of the switch in selling and buying new. Can you comment on AF performance and build quality between them?

Steve, how does corner performance compare between the two - I heard the Tokina is pretty impressive corner to corner.

tomm- I would agree that this kind of lens is typically shot at mid-apertures. My thought for the Tokina was to have a faster lens when needed, also sharper at the edges. For that, I'd give up the extra 1mm at the wide end and 4mm on the long end.

dj- too early for me to comment on AF performance and build quality, as I've only used the Tokina in these tests so far with limited available time in order to decide whether to keep it or not. I'm sure I will keep it, though.

Here's another shot I have time to post tonight. Processed exactly as above, except adjusted shutter speed for similar exposures. Click on image for original size.







The center sharpness looks like a tie to me, but the Tokina is a bit sharper towards the edges and corners.

I haven't seen as much distortion with the 11-16 as with most DX wides, is this your impression or is it just the lack of samples available. What I'm looking for is a lens for interiors. Most other DX wide have barrel distortion or worse that I really don't want to deal with.
Edit 6/20 Just spoke with Adorama, they say their orders are in line with the Nikon 18-200 their most popular lens so far.

Tom