I know enough to know that I don't know!

[travlnblueberries]

Can someone explain to me the difference between these two lenses.

 

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras and

 

 

 

Tokina AT-X116PRDXN AT-X PRO DX 11-16mm Ultra-wide Angle Lens for Nikon

 

 

I like to take pictures of the interior of the ship and the scenery in ports. Can someone explain the difference between 10-20 vs 11-16. Is there much of a difference between the 10 on the Sigma and the 11 on the Tokina? Is there much of a difference between the f/4 vs f/2.8?

 

I realize there is a difference, but is it enough to make a difference between these two? I want to put this on a Nikon d7000. But I don't know enough to make a wise decision.:o (or if you have any suggestions of something else)

TIA !

[pierces]

Can someone explain to me the difference between these two lenses.

 

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras and

 

 

 

Tokina AT-X116PRDXN AT-X PRO DX 11-16mm Ultra-wide Angle Lens for Nikon

 

 

I like to take pictures of the interior of the ship and the scenery in ports. Can someone explain the difference between 10-20 vs 11-16. Is there much of a difference between the 10 on the Sigma and the 11 on the Tokina? Is there much of a difference between the f/4 vs f/2.8?

 

I realize there is a difference, but is it enough to make a difference between these two? I want to put this on a Nikon d7000. But I don't know enough to make a wise decision.:o (or if you have any suggestions of something else)

TIA !

 

On the wide end, the difference between 10mm and 11mm is visible, but not night and day. On the long end the difference is more noticeable and may allow you to avoid a few lens changes with the Sigma venturing into the not-so-wide realm (people look horrible with an ultra-wide, but the 30mm equivalent on the Sigma is usable). On a lens that wide, the difference is fairly small between f/2.8 and f/4. The depth of field is huge, rendering the only real difference being the one-stop faster Tokina allowing you to shoot at a higher shutter speed in low light.

 

Both lenses are well reviewed and with the optical performance being as close as it is, I would personally choose the Sigma. I shoot with a Sony, so the faster aperture has less value to me than the much wider zoom range. Indoors on the ships, the faster max aperture may be of greater value to you.

 

That covers my opinion on those two lenses. My personal choice for an ultra-wide would be the new Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM which is phenomenally sharp and distortion-free for an ultra-wide.

 

Dave

[MikeC1610]

Hi Berries

 

I have the Tokina 11-16 (for almost 2 weeks now) and also use a Nikon D7000. I love it. It is exceptionally sharp and if you are planning on doing a lot of indoor shots on the ship it would be my choice due to it's low light capability.

 

Best bet though is to go and try both lenses on your D7000 and see what you think. Take a bunch of shots in the store, down load them and compare.

 

How are you enjoying your D7000?

[chipmaster]

Tokina is 2.8 one stop faster than the Sigma! That is worth a 2x in ISO or 2x in shutter speed.

 

So if you were to need shoot 12mm 2.8 at 800 ISO you could only do the same shutter speed and 1600 ISO on the Sigma as it only can go to F4.

 

As to DOF for and blur comes into play so if you want everything in focus you'll be shooting F8 to F11 and it will matter little which lense you get. If you indeed want shallow DOF and most things blurred out say shoot a subject at 1-3feet with everythign else blurr than the Tokina is the lense for you. Than again its a lot bigger and more expensive.

 

 

Can someone explain to me the difference between these two lenses.

 

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras and

 

 

 

Tokina AT-X116PRDXN AT-X PRO DX 11-16mm Ultra-wide Angle Lens for Nikon

 

 

I like to take pictures of the interior of the ship and the scenery in ports. Can someone explain the difference between 10-20 vs 11-16. Is there much of a difference between the 10 on the Sigma and the 11 on the Tokina? Is there much of a difference between the f/4 vs f/2.8?

 

I realize there is a difference, but is it enough to make a difference between these two? I want to put this on a Nikon d7000. But I don't know enough to make a wise decision.:o (or if you have any suggestions of something else)

TIA !

[peacebeach]

Have the Sigma and loovvveee it for daytime and getting unique shots, but yet it's true that it doesn't do well in low light situations w/out a tripod. :)

[awboater]

I have the Tokina 11-16, and it is a great lens.

 

You are not going to notice any difference between 10mm and 11mm. The only way you will be able to tell is if you compare two photos side-by-side.

 

 

This photo is at 10mm

 

 



This photo is at 11mm - not a lot of difference.

 

If you compare the horizon and how far the land extends to the left, and where the mountain peak is to the right is the only way you will be able to tell.

 

As well, your kit lens is probably 18mm, so you won't notice any issues with the 16mm of the Tokina.

 

Currently, I take the Tokina 11-16mm and Nikon 18-200mm on cruises for my two lenses of choice.

 

I especially like the f/2.8 which is constant, vs the variable f/4 ~5.6 which makes it 1 to 2 stops faster, depending on the zoom setting. This has come in handy for taking photos of the interior of cruise ships. And I bought this lens especially for that purpose.

 

And as typical for a superwide zoom, there is not a limited DoF issue at f/2.8. On a cropped camera at the 11mm zoom setting, if you set the focus point to 10ft, everything from 4ft to infinity will be in focus - so sez my DoF Calculator (and confirmed by experience with this lens and a D90). So in some sense, you could almost even use this lens without needing to focus.

 

Chip; needing to use f/8 to get decent DoF does not apply with superwide lenses.

 

So shoot away at f/2.8 without having to bother with wondering if you are going to get any blurry background - you won't.

 

Finally, the Tokina is sharp and a professional grade lens with internal focusing. The only downside is it is a bit heavy.

 

When I was trying to decide between the Tokina 11-16 and Nikon 10-24, these videos helped me to pick the Tokina 11-16 and I am glad that is the lens I bought.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/QQQQcon#p/u/47/LJKfEPz76XE

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/QQQQcon#p/u/46/unAIPtQJ21E

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/QQQQcon#p/u/43/0znqSfSg0iw

[zackiedawg]

I picked the Tamron 10-24mm myself over the Sigma, but they were close enough in performance to not matter too much - if I were looking today, I'd likely go with either the Tamron again or the Sigma 8-16mm which looks quite good and gives a shockingly wide view. But in all honesty, there's very little difference in overall performance between all the ultrawides.

 

Faster apertures can be handy - one reason I leaned to the Tamron over the Sigma was the F3.5 wide aperture - the Tokina goes 1/2 stop better at F2.8. But it's not going to matter too much unless you intend to stay handheld at all times, and are shooting very dark interiors with a camera that isn't too good at higher ISOs.

 

Chipmaster mentioned DOF when wide open - as mentioned by AWBoater the rules of DOF do not apply to UWA - even wide open, the depth of field is massive, and it will actually be difficult to ever get anything OUT of focus. UWA lenses have huge depth of field, and with the fastest apertures still ranks in the feet, rather than inches. Here's wide open, F3.5, at 10mm...the closest pews are 2-3 feet from me, the back of the church is more than 80 feet away:

 

[chipmaster]

Chip; needing to use f/8 to get decent DoF does not apply with superwide lenses.

 

So shoot away at f/2.8 without having to bother with wondering if you are going to get any blurry background - you won't.

 

 

 

Funny I shoot 17mm F2.8 that is ~ 11mm or so on crop and amazing when I do flowers or interesting propsective big difference in what is sharp at F2.8 and say F11, personally what I end up liking is something inbetween and having everything sharp is rarely the goal. Not enough need for a nice 24 1.4 :D

 

Of course for scenics I usually just do a quick 4 shot stich panormic at 35mm and F8.

[awboater]

There are several good DoF calculators out there that include the provisions for DX cropping or FX lengths.

 

This is one that I like: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

But I also use a free one that I load on my iPod Touch which goes into the camera bag.

 

For 17mm @ f/2.8, and the focus point at 10ft, the DoF will be:

 

FX:

Subject Distance: 10ft

Near Focus Point: 5.29ft

Far Focus Point: 90ft

DX:

Subject Distance: 10ft

Near Focus Point: 6.29ft

Far Focus Point: 24ft

 

For 11mm @ f/2.8, with the same 10ft focus, the DoF is:

 

FX:

Subject Distance: 10ft

Near Focus Point: 3.2ft

Far Focus Point: Infinity

DX:

Subject Distance: 10ft

Near Focus Point: 4ft

Far Focus Point: Infinity

 

Of course there is no such thing as a 11mm FX lens - at least not one that I am aware of. But it has to be remembered with DX that even if there is an apparent focal length shift, it is only due to cropping, and the characteristics of the true focal length of the lens remains.

 

So while an 11mm DX lens on a 1.5x cropped camera does indeed have an apparent focal length of 17mm, it's distortion as well as the DoF characteristics are 11mm. So I suppose this is one time where a DX camera could be considered superior, as the 11mm lens is easy to build in the smaller DX diameter, but it would be very expensive (and large) to make one in the FX diameter.

 

I don't pretend to know everything about hyperfocal distances and circle of confusion and all that stuff, so I just go by the DoF calculators. And I am puzzled a bit why the same focal length with a DX vs FX format has slightly different DoFs, and the DX lens is simply cropped.

 

But I have looked at several different DoF calculators, and they all hold the same results. I think it has to do with the circle of confusion, but I am confused by the confusion in this regard.

[travlnblueberries]

Thank you all for your input.

 

Awboater, I checked out the links you gave. Now I'm really confused. I checked out one of his other reviews...the 11-16 vs 12-24. He said the 11-16 you would use for low light, and not for landscaping. And that the 12-24 you would use for landscaping. I guess I wanted to use it for both. My other concern was how people would turn out in a picture with the 11-16?

 

I looked at the 8-(can't remember) but the people were all distorted in the pictures.

 

I thought I wanted a wide lens. Like when you have two ships in port, and you want to take the picture of both of them.

 

I would absolutely love a picture of pulling out of San Juan at night, (I love San Juan at night)

 

And then pictures of inside the ship.

 

Love the scenery pictures. If DH goes diving, I'll probably walk around taking pictures in town. But when we are together, I love getting his photo with the scenery behind.

 

I'm so confused now:confused:

[pierces]

Thank you all for your input.

 

Awboater, I checked out the links you gave. Now I'm really confused. I checked out one of his other reviews...the 11-16 vs 12-24. He said the 11-16 you would use for low light, and not for landscaping. And that the 12-24 you would use for landscaping. I guess I wanted to use it for both. My other concern was how people would turn out in a picture with the 11-16?

 

I looked at the 8-(can't remember) but the people were all distorted in the pictures.

 

I thought I wanted a wide lens. Like when you have two ships in port, and you want to take the picture of both of them.

 

I would absolutely love a picture of pulling out of San Juan at night, (I love San Juan at night)

 

And then pictures of inside the ship.

 

Love the scenery pictures. If DH goes diving, I'll probably walk around taking pictures in town. But when we are together, I love getting his photo with the scenery behind.

 

I'm so confused now:confused:

 

Ultra-wides have value, but people aren't a good subject. Your eyes and brain correct somewhat when building lines lean, but not when one arm is twice as thick as the other or the nose takes up 50% of the facial real estate.

 

Consider panoramas...?

 

 

 

Even if your camera doesn't auto-stitch, Elements or inexpensive panorama software like Stoik's Panorama Maker are very easy to use and your kit lens can provide the images.

 

Dave

[awboater]

The videos I referenced can be confusing in the sense of what he recommended between the 11mm and 12mm lenses. But I provided them as they do a pretty good job at describing the optical quality.

 

However, I use my 11-16 for both inside and landscape work, so the one thing I disagree with him is why the 11-16 cannot be used for both. I corresponded with him on this, and he replied the 12-24 is better for landscapes, but when pressing him on why, he has yet to provide an answer.

 

So I'll just assume it is his personal preference, and I will leave it at that.

 

But I'll be honest with you. Like any wide angle, the 11-16 will have some perspective distortion. Therefore, they not suitable for portraiture as noses become bigger and faces become rounder. But for photos of people in a "landscape" setting, a superwide it should be OK.

 

While pierces idea of a panorama does present an attractive alternative, panoramas suffer from distortion as well, but in the form of pin-cushion rather than barrel distortion a normal superwide would have. So each approach has it's own place, and there are advantages to both, depending on the scene. So I would see that they complement each other in your ability to get that perfect shot.

 

Here are a few photos taken with my 11-16mm. They are a few duds of mine; composition-wise, but I picked them as they show a balance of landscapes with people in the foreground, and the degree of perspective distortion you can expect:

 

Photo with people in the foreground. Tokina 11-16mm @ 11mm. If you notice from left to right, people on the left tend to be leaning towards the right, and people on the right tend to be leaning towards the left. This is typical of superwide lens distortion.

 

Again, the Tokina 11-16mm @ 11mm. This shot is pretty good, and the pilliars are straight. From this photo at least, there doesn't seem to be a lot of noticeable distortion.

 

Tokina 11-16mm @ 11mm. Again, people tend to show up leaning a bit towards the center. The perspective distortion seems to favor being the most noticeable with people. Either that or everyone has been at Carlos and Charlies too long...

 

This is more telling. Notice that everything is pretty straight. The balconies on the left are not distorted, but it is the beginning of a so-called hump area on the ship. But you can see some barrel distortion at the light-blue painted area at the top of the photo. Again, the Tokina 11-16mm @ 11mm.

 

And just for S&G, I took the same photo with a Nikon 10mm fisheye. Yea, this lens is a lot different.

 

 

Back to the Tokina 11-16mm @ 11mm. Again, people have some noticeable perspective distortion - but this shot pretty much masks that as it is naturally a curved environment.

 

While there is no getting around some distortion with any lens, a lot depends on the subject matter and the situation. I guess that is why we lug around a bag full of different lenses...

[awboater]

Here are a couple more shots of the landscape capabilities of the Tokina 11-16mm.

 

Cartagena, Colombia with the Tokina 11-16mm set at 11mm.

 

Same photo taken with the Tokina 11-16mm, but at 16mm.

 

If you want photos of people with a nice background scene, then as long as you try to keep your subject centered in the photo, and not too close - like a full-face portrait, I think a superwide would be OK.

 

Hope this helps you in your decision on whether or not to buy a superwide.

[opus36]

I will be going on a 10 day to the E Carib. Taking my Canon Eos with the standard 18-55 lens and 50mm fixed lens. After seeing this thread, I am now loving the wide angles. I have found a couple of places online to rent the lenses I need for a couple of weeks to see if I really need it. I cab rent the Tokina for around a 100.00 per 10 days.

 

_lisa

[travlnblueberries]

awboater, thank you so much for sharing your photos. Seeing the ships in port like that, has my heart-a-fluttering.:)

 

I also like that you showed me the two pictures, one done at the 11, and the other at the 16, so I could see the difference. Thank you so much.

[mr.jdm]

might want to look at the Sigma 10-20 f3.5. I had a chance to use it earlier this year on the Oasis of the Seas. It was perfect for the situation and also constant f3.5 which helps for indoor/low light situations. Or if you can Tokina 11-16 f2.8.

 

if you want to look at sample pictures. look at my sig below. most of the pics was shot with the 10-20. just the food pics were shot using sigma 28mm prime f1.4.

[Turtles06]

I'm going on a cruise to Bermuda in three weeks. Reading this thread and another recent one about wide angle lenses and looking at the great ship images that have been posted, I've been thinking about how great it would be to have an ultra wide for this cruise.....

 

Well, fortune has smiled! A friend of mine who is a photographer was cleaning out her closet over the weekend and, seeing her Nikon 12-24mm DX lens that she no longer has much use for because she is only shooting FX cameras, told me to take this lens on the cruise! (I have a Nikon D7000, and an 18-200mm lens.) I am really excited! :)

[travlnblueberries]

I'm going on a cruise to Bermuda in three weeks. Reading this thread and another recent one about wide angle lenses and looking at the great ship images that have been posted, I've been thinking about how great it would be to have an ultra wide for this cruise.....

 

Well, fortune has smiled! A friend of mine who is a photographer was cleaning out her closet over the weekend and, seeing her Nikon 12-24mm DX lens that she no longer has much use for because she is only shooting FX cameras, told me to take this lens on the cruise! (I have a Nikon D7000, and an 18-200mm lens.) I am really excited! :)

 

Turtles, that's great news! And a great friend! :)

I'm excited for you!

[travlnblueberries]

might want to look at the Sigma 10-20 f3.5. I had a chance to use it earlier this year on the Oasis of the Seas. It was perfect for the situation and also constant f3.5 which helps for indoor/low light situations. Or if you can Tokina 11-16 f2.8.

 

if you want to look at sample pictures. look at my sig below. most of the pics was shot with the 10-20. just the food pics were shot using sigma 28mm prime f1.4.

 

mr.jdm, thanks for your input and sharing such beautiful photos. I looked at each and every one of them. You did such a fine job!