Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
6/25/2018 7:04:05 PM
Posted: 6/21/2018 10:18:50 AM EDT
I want something wider than my current lenses for urban photography and landscapes. On my last trip overseas my 18-55 wasn't quite wide enough to get a lot of the old historic buildings in frame. And I like the idea of being able to go wide without having to back way up..

I currently have for my D7200:

18-55 kit lens, 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR, 35 and 55 primes.

Should I look at the Nikon 10-20 or 12-24? Other options? I'd be picking up the 12-24 used to keep it under $500 so recs around that threshold appreciated :)

Thanks group!
Link Posted: 6/21/2018 10:22:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/21/2018 10:56:09 AM EDT
How do they compare build/quality wise to Nikon?
Link Posted: 6/21/2018 1:06:07 PM EDT
Definitely consider one of the Tokina lenses. The only meaningful sacrifice is a little more focus noise over the Nikons.

I've had a Tokina 12-24 f/4 since 2004/05. I've moved onto FX about two years ago, but this lens still gets a lot of use on my daughter's D7100. I was editing some of her photos about a month ago, and was, still, quite impressed with the image quality.
Link Posted: 6/21/2018 1:07:19 PM EDT
I had bought the 10-20 and tried it out once. I don't find it useful for me. I've also had a hell of a time trying to unload it lol

YMMV
Link Posted: 6/21/2018 1:20:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoVAR:
How do they compare build/quality wise to Nikon?
View Quote
I've had zero durability issues with mine (12-24 f/4). I

Cosmetically, the Tokinas hold up better than any offering from Nikon. Nikon rubber starts to develop a "sun screen lotion" look after years of use. The Tokina, in comparable use for over a decade, shows no such white fogging on the rubber. But, then again, it's just a cosmetic thing. I'll post up some photos later this evening.

The lens hood of the Tokina is about 50% thicker than the plastic on the Nikons. I've broken at least one petaled Nikon hood. Still on the original Tokina hood.

The white fogging on the focus and zoom rings on my lenses might be from gymnastics chalk from rock climbing. Or maybe some combination of that and actual sunscreen. Who knows. Bottom line is that Tokina is still going strong, and with some rather rough use.
Link Posted: 6/21/2018 2:24:44 PM EDT
NoVAR: I have both the Nikon 10-20 and the 10-24. I just got the 10-20, but so far it has been a decent lens.
It is way lighter than my 10-24 because it is mostly plastic.(Yeah I know people would rather have metal, but I have e a huge respect for high-tech polymers, witness the polymer guns such as Glocks etc, because you can mold a part cheaper than machining out of metal). So if you don't need the F/3.5 of the 10-24, you should seriously consider the F/4.5 10-20, this is ~2/3 stop.
BTW a caveat, the 10-20 is the newer AF-P design, and may not function with older D-Nikons, so if you have older Nikons like D3xxxx, D5xxx, D7000 double check for compatibility. And on D5200 you will need to upgrade the firmware(this was really easy to do, if you have a laptop/desktop computer, don't know about smart phones) for AF-P lenses.
Link Posted: 6/22/2018 7:29:15 PM EDT
Thanks everyone for the replies. It seems like Tokina is a front runner. Since I'm not going to be shooting landscapes wide open (right? I'm still noob) am I losing anything with only being able to go to f/4?
Link Posted: 6/22/2018 7:40:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/22/2018 7:58:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zack3g:

As far as I'm aware the tokina 11-16 and the updated 11-20 are both f/2.8
View Quote
My bad, might have mixed it up with the Nikon options I was looking at. What's the benefit of having such a fast wide angle lens? I get it for a 35 or 50 with the DoF but how does that play with the distortion of a wide angle?
Link Posted: 6/22/2018 8:16:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/22/2018 8:42:02 PM EDT
I have had a Sigma 10-20 for some time, 10 years now I suppose, and I would get the Tokina 11-20 today. Newer lens, quite nice. Although I am perfectly satisfied with the Sigma. Can't justify the price for the Nikon. Wide aperture isn't that important to me in a wide angle lens since it is mostly used for landscapes and stopped down a bit.
Link Posted: 6/22/2018 10:54:05 PM EDT
There is a Nikon 10-20 4.5-5.6 AF-P lens in the EE right now.

I have no idea if it's a good price though.
Link Posted: 6/22/2018 11:02:34 PM EDT
Listen to what everyone is saying about the Tokina. Fantastic lens.

Here's the 11-16, one of my first shots with it.

DSC_6764-PerspectaCloudStars by FredMan, on Flickr

And here's the 11-20, which replaced my 11-16 after I accidentally flung the camera across the room and busted the 11-16.

Lightning Rainbow 20180514 by FredMan, on Flickr

The 11-16 had some moderately severe flare issues if a bright light point source was in the frame; that seems to have been significantly reduced in the 11-20.
Link Posted: 6/23/2018 10:24:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/23/2018 10:24:32 AM EDT by NoVAR]
FredMan I was admiring that pic yesterday. Another vote for the Tokina
Link Posted: 6/23/2018 10:17:45 PM EDT
Sorry for taking so long to reply, it’s been a rough few days.

+1 on the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 version II. The 11-20mm is good as well, but IMO the 11-16mm gen 2 is a little more durable and sharper. Mind you, grain of salt on the post. Both are solid lenses though.
Link Posted: 6/24/2018 4:54:02 PM EDT
I think we have a winner... Sounds like the Tokina 11-16 v2 is it. My 18-55 isn't a pro lens, but with it there's only 2mm of focal length I'm missing. And the 11-16 is cheaper than 11-20 as well
Link Posted: 6/24/2018 6:55:16 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoVAR:
I think we have a winner... Sounds like the Tokina 11-16 v2 is it. My 18-55 isn't a pro lens, but with it there's only 2mm of focal length I'm missing. And the 11-16 is cheaper than 11-20 as well
View Quote
That extra 2mm difference in a the lower end is significant, on the upper end not much so. But you are not interested in the 16mm part of the lense but on the 10mm, that 8mm difference is huge.
BTW part of the price of the 18-55mm difference is in the lens barrel, which is mostly plastic. Personally I like plastic not only is it cheaper, but it is lighter.
Top Top