UKH

Hi, I have a sony a65 (APS-c) and want a good wide angle lens.

I will be shooting landscapes with it 99% of the time (in daylight), but would also like to take some night shots of the stars like this-

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ironrodart/7554823348/

I am looking at the Tamron 10-24 vs Tokina 11-16.

The Tokina seems to be the sharper lens, and the f2.8 will really help with the night shots (vs Tamron f3.5- especially considering the sony a65's poor high ISO performance).

But it also suffers more from flaring and ghosting by the sounds of it...anyone with any experience of this (is it easy to remove in post processing?).

Any advice?

Thanks.

In reply to phja:

I can't comment on the lenses and even at that, this is only a guess, but my instinct is that noise is easier to deal with in PP than is flare and ghosting. However, this might not be the case for night time star trails. Food for thought - ask around

In reply to phja:

I bought the Tamron and then returned it because it was so soft at the edges and it just seemed too hard to get anything approaching good results from it.

As I have a Canon body I then bought the Canon version which is a lot better, though far from perfect it has to be said..

In reply to phja:

I believe there is a now a MK 2 version of the Tokina that they (Tokina) claim has different coatings on the elements and is better.

The Sigma versions seem to get pretty good reviews too, although a few people report getting bad copies.

I'm in the same postions as you and trying to decide which to get, for my canon biody.

In reply to phja:

I've done a lot of research on this and the general consensus is that the Tokina 11-16 is really good, sharp and the fastest in its class. This is probably the best choice for you. Flare won't be a big problem with stars.

Personally I went for the Sigma 8-16mm which is also really sharp, wider, and well reviewed, although a lot slower, I've found this fine for night shots so far.

Avoid the tamron and slow sigma 10-20mm, both seem to be poorly reviewed compared to the above. The newer, faster sigma 10-20mm is supposed to be better, but is only a little cheaper than the Tokina 11-16.




This is the most comprehensive and in depth group review I've seen:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Le...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tokina-11-16mm-f-2.8-AT-X-Pro-DX...

see this thread too
http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=528156

In reply to phja:
Tokina 11-16 - end of discusion

In reply to jockster:

Post from me, from another topic:
---
If you want to go wide, go for the Tokina 11-16. Now they also do a version with AF, even though AF isn't really needed.

However, landscape =! wide lens. The lens that comes with the 3100 is really ok and quite sharp for a kit lens, it's just slow... you can also opt for a 50mm f/1.8, but that depends on what you want to photograph.
I had the Tokina 116 and used it on a D40, and got some really cool results- though with wide lenses, you have to be creative to get the most out of them...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/arjen_van_doorn/5385221294/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arjen_van_doorn/4773524211/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arjen_van_doorn/4637263458/in/photostream
---

In reply to phja:

I own the 11-16 2.8. It's pin sharp and is very good wide open even in the corners. Read the reviews - they're very positive. The 11-16 though is practically a prime in my opinion, as the actual change in the field of view at the long and short end of the zoom range is very small.

If you're cool with this - ie you want a wide prime - go for it. If you want a bit more flexibility then also consider Tokina's 12-24 f4. It's also very good, but a bit more useful.

Si