A flawed comparison. ( Image Heavy )

[I @ M]

Disclaimer, this grossly unscientific "test" is purely a backyard comparison of two lenses on the one body. :D
The images were all processed from NEF to JPEG with the same picture control parameters.

Nikon 14-24 compared to Tokina 16-28

Nikon at 14 and then 24 mm
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/nw1.JPG

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/nw2.JPG

Tokina at 16 and then 28mm
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/tw1.JPG

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/tw2.JPG

Here is where it gets interesting, first the Tokina at 16mm and then the Nikon at an indicated 16mm

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/tw3.JPG

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/nw3.JPG

Then the Nikon at varying apertures
2.8
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/n2.JPG
5.6
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/n5.JPG
8
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/n8.JPG
11
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/n11.JPG
16
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/n16.JPG

Then the Tokina at the same apertures.
2.8
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/t2.JPG
5.6
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/t5.JPG
8
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/t8.JPG
11
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/t11.JPG
16
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9582534/T16.JPG

[DAdeGroot]

But, what are your conclusions ? A comparison is all well and good, but generally the purpose is to draw conclusions from said comparison.

[chrisbevan4]

Dave a good point!


But, what are your conclusions ? A comparison is all well and good, but generally the purpose is to draw conclusions from said comparison.

Andrew


Nikon 14-24 compared to Tokina 16-28

Do you own both lens? Or are you trying to work out the best one for you?

I have been thinking about getting a Tokina Lens, they get good reviews and
seem to be on par with Nikon IMO and a lot cheaper

[I @ M]

Dave, I posted the sample images as an indication of the differences between the two lenses under very close to identical conditions for others to view so that they may be able to determine if one or the other lens produces an image that looks better / worse to them for their needs. I will write a little below about what I see and the pros and cons of one against the other. :)

Chris, we bought the Tokina, the comparison was done with the Nikon that is owned by AP member helmutk who lives just around the corner and down the road from us. The Tokina was purchased based on positive reviews, image samples that are on the 'net and price that suggested it would offer good bang for the bucks.

On to my opinion.

Build quality ( external )

From handling, mounting and using both lenses I would not be able to separate the two, both have a good sold well manufactured appearance and feel to them.
The zoom mechanism on the Tokina is slightly stiffer than the Nikon, that may be just the newness of the lens compared to the sample Nikon but even if it stays at the same level of drag I don't see it as a negative, it is not too stiff and it means that focal length is hard to "knock" out of place. Basically a non event either way.
Both lenses feel the same when mounting to the camera, well fitting and smooth engagement on the body. Both have a weather "sealing" rubber gasket.

In use.

Both feel the same right down to the chequering in the rubber on the zoom and focus rings.
The zoom ring "stiffness" ( see above ) is different.
Auto focus, the Nikon offers instant, grab the focus ring and adjust style of control that is typical of the AF-S lenses. The Tokina has a simple well weighted collar that has to be slid back and forth to engage / disengage AF. I actually prefer the Tokina method, once focus is set manually the collar can be disengaged and won't be affected should one accidentally "knock" the ring. No big deal either way.
AF speed, the Nikon is typical of the higher end AF-S lenses in that it is pretty well silent and smooth, the Tokina is much the same, certainly as smooth as the Nikon but maybe with a detectable noise to it. Once again, no big deal to me anyway. The difference in speed of the AF mechanism between the two is basically undetectable to me anyway, both have to shift plenty of glass and seem to do it with ease and relatively quickly. Maybe for some fast focus speed is required on a wide angle lens but I wouldn't complain about the speed of either.

On to the important bit -- the pics. :D

Firstly the variation in field of view at an indicated 16mm on both lenses is something I will have to look at deeper. The Nikon shows 16mm on the body and in the exif data when the image is on the camera screen info section or the pc, likewise with the Tokina. Maybe there is a bit of latitude in the range and had I zoomed the Nikon a little closer it would have still showed 16mm in the data but had the same (narrower) width of the Tokina. Either that or the Tokina simply doesn't have as wide a coverage at 16mm as the Nikon. I don't have the figure s to show what the Nikon angle of view at 16mm is supposed to be compared to the Tokina (claimed) 107.11°. :confused013

Then the rest is fairly easier to see, the Nikon has a smoother less "jagged" appearance to parts of the images that are either well out of focus at wider apertures or still in reasonable focus at tighter apertures. Taking into account any "sampling" differences or without spending time to adjust either lens to the body it appears to me that the Nikon, Helmut's lens shows nothing in any images from it that suggest it isn't a "good" one, is slightly sharper across the range and produces slightly better defined contrast in both colour and light. Of course those parameters can be overcome to a degree in processing and like lenses that I have used one tends to become familiar with the characteristics of each and shoot and process according to the way each lens works.
I don't see anything with the Tokina to suggest that it could be called "soft" at either the centre or the edges. A full properly done test to check resolution, field curvature etc etc may show more scientifically accurate data but "out in the yard" it all looks good to me.

My opinion is that the Tokina will produce very good images, as a hapahazard guess they will be within a few percent of the Nikon.
If 16mm isn't wide enough and the need is there for the extra 2mm that the Nikon offers then the answer is easy -- buy the Nikon or investigate the Sigma 12-24.
If price matters the Tokina represents very good value in my opinion.

[Xebadir]

I notice a bit of a difference particularly in wide open at 2.8 and 4 that the bokkeh isn't as nice for the Tokina, the distortion is also much more noticeable around the edges. As a budget option I tend to agree, but given its still not a cheap lens I guess you have to weigh up the options.