Sigma 8-16 vs Tokina 11-16 2.8 Canon mount

[AndreasOberg]

Hiya,

I haven't seen anyone use the Sigma 8-16 lens but lots and lots that use the Tokina. Is there a particular reason? A few reason I can see
- seems like you cant have filter on the Sigma
- the Tokina lets in more light at 2.8 which mainly should be useful indoors and maybe in sunsets

Otherwise the Sigma has wider view, much better CA and a bit better sharpness. Is it even compatible with the Epic?

Any ideas would be appreciated. Looking for a cheap solution to get access to super wide landscape shots.
/Andreas

 

[Maik Müller]

Yep, i always wondered about the same, but didn't have the chance to play with that lens so far.

There are also two 10-20-lenses from Sigma, a older 4.0-5.6 and a newer 3.5, i wonder how they perform compared to the tokina. Unlike the 8-16 they do both take filters (82 for the newer, 77 for the older one).

 

[AndreasOberg]

Yea, everyone seems to use Tokina, the 2.8 aperture is of course very interesting, but myself I would mostly use it for landscape so very light sensitive is not the most important feature (but welcome).
I wonder if the Sigma Autofocus is even supported. Anyone knows?
/Andreas

 

[Les Dittert]

I have the Sigma 8-16 and love it. I like wide shots, and it is very handy especially when you want to crop the camera down to do high frame rates. It is slow, but in most situations very usable. It's pretty sharp too. It goes in my bag before the Tokina does.

 

[Julian Banos]

Does it crop at 4K? What about 3K?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Does it cover Epic 5k?

 

[AndreasOberg]

I only know that the Tokina doesn't quite cover 5k at 11mm. Maybe at 11.5 or 12 it does.

What are the main reasons you use the sigma before the Tokina?
/Andreas

 

[AndreasOberg]

Sigma is better in
+ Considerably sharper. MTF of about 2700 vs 2000 of Tokina
+ CA is a LOT less. About 0.4 compared to about 1.7
+ a lot wider. 8mm vs 11 looks like about 30% more image horizontal
+ minimum focus distance is 0.24m vs 0.3m

Minuses
- Much more vinjetting. Enough so it will be a problem
- Of course much slower. 5.6 at 16mm vs 2.8. 4 vs 2.8 at its widest. To make the Tokina sharper you need to go up to 5.6 but its still not as sharp as Sigma.
- build quality is supposed to be much poorer. Tokina has very nice focus ring
- Sigma rotates the wrong way (Nikon).

That is what I have found out so far
/Andreas

 

[Jesper Sichlau]

I love wide lenses and at 11mm the Tokina lens is perfect for my needs since I prefer to shoot 2.35:1 plus the focal length is amazing at f2.8. On top of that the lack of serious vignetting gives you the real feel of a FF camera where you can easily get the distance you need from your subject without making it look like a freaking Skateboard movie. I think this is preferably my favourite lens.

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

I have both, they are for different uses.
Andreas' post sums it pretty well!

It's so good that I kept it even if I have overlapping fl with the Tokina...

BTW I use a Tokina 80% of the time and the Sigma for 20%.

 

[Maik Müller]

Looking into this thing for a few hours now (again), i'm close to try it out. Yeah, some little lens-fever again, thanks Andreas!
Sigma needs to ARTify this lens. I mean, its the widest lens you can get for Canon (fisheyes aside) and already performs good in its "normal" form. Just saying.

Can someone pleeeeeease post a few samples shot on RED, maybe 5k and 4k?

 

[AndreasOberg]

Hiya, For examples you can find quite a lot on the internet.

Here is probably the best.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tokina-11-16mm-f-2.8-AT-X-Pro-DX-Lens-Review.aspx

Here the Tokina looks quite blurry, but remember that this picture only shows the corner where its at its worst.
I have the Tokina lens now and I'm testing it. Will see how it fares in the field. Going to an island with interesting cliffs and ocean next week. Should be able to get some interesting shots there using the mega wide angle!

I think the reality is that it may be worth having both. The Sigma is sharper and goes wider while the Tokina is faster and has less vinjetting. They are both very affordable lenses. Especially compared to the Fujinon Cabrio that I really want...
/Andreas

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

By the way...I find the Tokina having more "personality"...and it's also more versatile...you could wait for the upcoming cine version...

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

I do not know about the Sigma, but I have not been really impressed with too many of their lenses. What I love about the Tokina (and it is far too wide for me most of the tiime!) is that it is just crazy rectilinear. Distortion may be measurable, but it is not noticeable in actual practice.

Stephen

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

Sigma is better in
+ Considerably sharper. MTF of about 2700 vs 2000 of Tokina

Based on past experience, while you may have lucked out with a sharp example, not many other people would be so lucky.

I've seen some real crap with the Sigma name on it, and not much that was any good; I would look long and hard before buying anything from them.

Mike

 

[AndreasOberg]

Good to know Mike. Sharpness were not my measurements but from sites like the Digital Picture so I haven't tested it myself.
I'm only now testing the Tokina. First impression was "yikes this is very wide"
/Andreas