Now it gets interesting. I would say that hands down f/4 is generally slow for concert stuff. But now that it’s between the 14-24mm and the 11-16mm, it’s a much more difficult question.

On DX, the difference between 11mm and 14mm is going to be noticeable, but either way, both are very wide.

While I almost never used the Tokina 12-24mm for gigs, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 has really surprised me by its quality and ability to deliver super high-impact images, so much that I find myself using it even when it’s not strictly appropriate. It’s just that kind of lens.

Overall, I’d say 14-24mm is more useful on either DX or FX full-frame.

Aside from differences in range, I think a lot of it comes down to price. Given my positive experience with the 14-24mm, I would say that it’s worth the money.

Hope this helps, let me know if you have any more questions.

If it’s between the Nikon 14-24mm and the Tokina 11-16mm, both of which are f/2.8 lenses, then it’s a slightly different game.

What do you foresee your primary use for this lens being?

If you really need wide, the Tokina 11-16mm looks like a very interesting lens if you can accept its limited range. The f/2.8 aperture would certainly make it more useful than the slower f/4 12-24mm.

For third party lenses, the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 was the only third-party AF lens that I owned. I think Tokina does a great job with build quality, something that I can’t always say about Sigma and Tamron.

The 12-24mm was totally solid and had a nice “dense” feeling in the hand.

Personally, Sigma’s “EX” finish on their lenses creeps me out. I don’t want my lenses to feel like smooth like a baby’s bottom.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to range versus speed: the 12-24mm lenses offer a more usable range, while f/2.8 brings a whole stop of added usability – which is really important if you want to do PJ stuff, but not so much if you’re shooting landscape and architecture.