10mm, 1/1000 @ f8, ISO 200
My copy of the lens arrived this week, and I have had a chance to do a little shooting with it.
See also: Sigma 8-16/f4.5-5.6 First Look
Updated 5/20/2009: I had a chance to compare flare and ghosting with the 10-24 as well as the Tokina 11-16. The results were somewhat surprising. The Nikon’s performance here is, frankly, spectacular for such a wide-angle lens. The photo above, of Roanoke, Virginia’s Taubman Museum of Art, is a pretty extreme test, with a blazing late-afternoon sun squarely in the frame. While the Tokina’s performance wasn’t always as bad as the image below, the Nikon was clearly superior in this regard at every aperture.
Tokina 11mm, 1/1000 @ f8, ISO 200
Specifications. Rather than quote the numbers, here’s the bottom line: this is a variable-aperture zoom, giving it a very nice size, shape, and weight for its zoom range. The ED glass helps suppress chromatic aberration. It fits in perfectly with Nikon’s current range of pro and “pro-sumer” glass.
Handling. Well-built with everything where you want it to be. Nikon seems to have this figured out, with smooth and appropriately-damped movements and precision you want.
Performance. Sharp, contrasty, with manageable distortion and low chromatic aberration. It would not be my first choice for architecture and similar assisgnments due to noticeable barrel distortion at 10mm, but the distortion is correctable with software.
Conclusions. Tokina’s 11-16/f2.8 will be a tough lens to beat. Its combination of price and performance, coupled with its constant f2.8 aperture, makes it close to a dream lens in the ultra-wide category. Its drawbacks–limited focal length range and less nimble handling–are minor. But I intend to give the 10-24 a thorough evaluation in coming weeks.
Examples.
Support this site:
Buy the Nikon 10-24/f3.5-4.5
Buy the Tokina 11-16/f2.8
10 responses so far ↓
1 Steve // Jun 3, 2009 at 6:35 am
Interested in your opinion vs. the lens this replcases, the 12-24 DX F/4.
2 The Sports Photo Guy // Jun 3, 2009 at 7:06 am
That’s a popular question. Frankly, I’ve never used the Nikon 12-24.
At the time it came out, I opted for the Sigma 12-24 for two reasons: one, it was full frame; and two, it had great distortion characteristics compared to what was reported for the Nikon.
Later, I switched to the Tokina 11-16 due to its speed (f2.8).
I’d recommend Ken Rockwell’s site for information on how the 12-24 compares, but in a nutshell his conclusions are the same as mine: the Tokina 11-16 and the new Nikon 10-24 are the best choices in DX ultra-wide zooms.
3 Steve // Jun 5, 2009 at 8:36 am
Thanks. Well, if I ever break my 12-24/DX I will get the 10-24.
4 Peteyy // Aug 19, 2009 at 11:11 pm
I own the Nikon 12-24mm and bought the Tokina 11-16mm. I returned the Tokina. The BIG difference: AF-S. The Nikon 12-24mm delivered far fewer OOF images. The Tokina also hunted much much more, especially in lowr light (when you want to leverage the f/2.8 speed) and did not seem to take advanatge of my focus assist light on my SB-800 when employed. I would be interesting to see you compare the 10-24mm and Tokina in this regard.
5 Sahib7 // Jan 15, 2010 at 10:20 am
Have you made a comparison between the Tokina and the Nikon by now?
I would be highly interested in your conclusion!
THX!
6 The Sports Photo Guy // Jan 15, 2010 at 11:37 am
I have. You can get a general idea from the All About Lenses page. Basically, while I loved the Nikon 10-24 as a general purpose lens, the Tokina was much better suited for sports shooting, thanks to its f2.8 aperture. Never had any AF issues with mine, either.
7 Sahib7 // Jan 16, 2010 at 5:42 am
My experience in a nutshell:
Tokina:
PRO: f2.8 constant, cheaper, a tad sharper (only at 11mm, not at longer focal length)
CONTRA: slightly heavier, almost a prime, not as wide as the Nikon (10 vs. 11mm is a huge difference), narrower range (16 vs. 24mm), need to use exposure-compensation a lot (time x and aperture y gives a different exposure at 11mm vs. 16mm), prone to flares
Nikon:
PRO: zoom range, goes wider, slightly lighter (about 100g), accurate exposure at different focal lengths (time x and aperture y gives the same exposure at 10mm vs. 24mm), almost constant sharpness at all focal lengths (at 11mm a bit worse than the Tokina, but better at 16mm), AF-accurracy is better (at least with my sample), less flares&ghosting, more future-proof cause of AF
CONTRA: more expensive (about 200€ in Europe), a tad less sharp at 11mm, no constant aperture and slower (f3,5-4,5 vs. f2.8)
My own conclusion:
After trying 4(!) different Tokina lenses (all had flaws, decentered or autofocus) I ‘ve tried the Nikon 10-24 (I hesitated because here in Europe the price-difference is quite high and most of the Nikon reviews were not very good for a lens at that price point). After all I will keep the Nikon.
Have you kept both?
8 The Sports Photo Guy // Jan 16, 2010 at 7:20 am
No – I just kept the Tokina. But it was a tough call. If Nikon had made the 10-24 about a $700 lens, it would be worth it.
9 Nick Lawton // Oct 10, 2010 at 11:13 am
Now you have spent a year or so with the Tokina (I presume you still have it) and the Nikon 10-24 is now around $700us.
Would you be tempted by the Nikon?
Do you find the Tokina zoom range to be limiting?
I have basically narrowed my options to the Nikon 10-24, the Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20 and the Tamaron 10-24. I have read review after review and am still stuck. I would use it for mainly for cityscapes, but also for lanscapes and indoor shooting.
Please help
10 The Sports Photo Guy // Oct 10, 2010 at 11:27 am
If you need f2.8, buy the Tokina. If you don’t, I’d go with the Nikon. I’m also very impressed with the Sigma 8-16. I use the Tokina all the time, and yes it is sometimes limiting but surprisingly it works well in many situations.
Leave a Comment