Tokina 11-16mm vs Tokina 12-24mm

Hey guys i’m chris a 20 something amateur photographer from the UK. I joined this site last week to meet fellow HDR enthusiasts! I’m thinking about getting a new lens soon and i’m torn between the Tokina 11-16mm and the Tokina 12-24mm. Does anyone on here use either of these lenses? if so any insight into how awesome or rubbish they are would be appreciated! 99.9% of all my photography is of landscapes if that helps!

Hello Chris, Since a few months i am a happy user of a Tokina 11-16mm, it is really a Great (and sharp) lens and a lot of fun to shoot with ! (see some examples in my portfolio) Probably the 12-24mm is a great lens also although a little older and a smaller maximum aperture (11-16mm = f/2.8 – 12-24mm = f/4) so the 12-24 captures a little bit less light and is therefor called “slower” (however for the best optical results both need to be stopped down to f/8, to reduce vignetting and have the highest sharpness). Read the reviews about both lenses at http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/272-tokina-af… AND http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_11…
Regarding the test, the newer 11-16mm has a better distortion characteristic and gets a bit better end-verdict then the 12-24mm. The choice of either lens also depends on the glass you already have, as i already owned the Nikkor 16-85mm, the Tokina 11-16mm was an “easy” choice. Also considered the Sigma 10-20mm which is a fine ultra-wide also but after thorough reading of reviews and articles on the net, i choose the Tokina 11-16mm.