Nikkor 12-24mm Vs. 10-24mm Vs. Tokina 11-16mm

dixonduke

Which of these lenses would y'all recommend?

Wondering if others here have had a similar argument and ultimately were able to make a choice.... What was it?? :help

I am wanting a super wide to complement my camera bag, but to be honest I am stuck in a bit of sensory/information overload with all that I have read. The Nikkor 12-24, 10-24 and the Tokina 11-16 all seem to have received good reviews, which is challenging my decision making abilities. :scratch

So if there are others out there like me, I would love to hear what you ended up choosing. Are you happy with your choice enough to recommend it?

Thanks,
Duke

the supervillain

i am having the exact same dilemma right now!!

have to make a decision yet, (even if i did, i cant afford it now, but thats another story!)

heres my take-
the nikon 10-24:
-replaces the 12-24
-cheaper build than the 12-24
-more range than tokina

tokina 11-16
-fast fast fast!
-no autofocus on entry level nikon DSLRs (d40, d60, d5000)
-sample variation has been reported. not sure if this has been fixed or not!

so i initially had my heart set on the tokina, but after reading about the problems people have had, i am little iffy on it.

if the 10-24 really does replace the 12-24, that means a price drop in the 12-24, which would be cool, because the 12-24 has received stellar reviews!

i like the idea of the longer range with the nikon, i would sell my 18-55 kit lens and have this lens and my 50mm prime, and i would be set!

i am waiting until more reviews come out for the 10-24, because i want the widest possible w/o going for fisheye

not sure if that will help or anything, but i had to add my 2 cents seeing as i am going through the same thing!

good luck, keep us posted

the supervillain

oh i forgot to mention:

sigma is coming out with a new 10-20 that is a constant f3.5!
not sure if its out yet, but that is another one i am waiting for some reviews on....

Art Scott

the supervillain wrote:

oh i forgot to mention:

sigma is coming out with a new 10-20 that is a constant f3.5!
not sure if its out yet, but that is another one i am waiting for some reviews on....

just went to the SIGGY site and no MSRP on it yet:cry

dixonduke

the supervillain wrote:

i am having the exact same dilemma right now!!

Glad to see that I am not alone....:D

HarveyMushman

Art Scott wrote:

just went to the SIGGY site and no MSRP on it yet:cry

$650

Haakon

I've had 2 copies of the Tokina 11-16. They were badly back focusing and even in manual focus I did'nt get any sharp pictures (extremely soft). My 18-200 made far better pictures.. long story short .. I gave up the Tokina. There is a long thread on Nikonians about people complaining about the Tokina. I finally went for the Nikon 10-24 and it's a faboulus lens. Some colour aberration, but not so much as the Tokina. Barrel distortion at 10 mm going to slight pincussion at 24 mm (barly noticble). Soft in the corners wide open, and some vignetting ... but forget it .. you won't notice .. the lens has a better MTF graph than the 12-24, it has the extra 2 mm and the close-up range is far better. As for the latter, I really love that the close-up range is as close as 22 cm (measured from back of your camera). I included an example of this on the Nikonians web site (check it out if you want) and in extremly short time this picture had the most views on the Macro gallery... and here it is ( somewhat compressed).

the supervillain

thanks haakon, thats what i feared about the tokina, i like the f2.8 but i dont want to worry about stuff like bad focusing i just want to shoot
i think i want the 10-24
my kit lens was gathering dust, so i slapped it on and took some shots, 18mm is not wide enough for me anymore!

Haakon

f2.8 is nice, but f3.5 is not that far off. Besides if you go for the 10-24 you may find that it is attached to your camera most of the time ... At least mine is .. and if not I'm using the 85 mm f1.8. Two lenses are all that is required, one wide angle zoom and one fast prime ... and pherhaps a macro lens .. Some more issues : the focus on the 10-24 is fast and extremly silent ( I had to check on my lens if the focus ring really had turned because I did'nt hear a thing..). Also the colour saturation is better than my 18-200 (and far better than the Tokinas that were probably bad copies) ...

the supervillain

yup, thats what i would think would happen, i would sell my 18-55, get the 10-24, then be happy with my 50 f1.8 my 105mm macro and the 10-24

okay, i have made my decision, what about you dixonduke?

rookieshooter

For what it's worth I just got done with a week of shooting the 14-24mm and was blown away by it. Razor sharp and just amazing on my full-frame camera.

The reviews say its the best wide angle in the world. it's so good even Canon shooters are using it with a special adapter.

dixonduke

the supervillain wrote:

yup, thats what i would think would happen, i would sell my 18-55, get the 10-24, then be happy with my 50 f1.8 my 105mm macro and the 10-24

okay, i have made my decision, what about you dixonduke?

I took delivery of the Tokina today. Heading to Colorado in the morning to give it a test drive.......

I wish I could give you all a scientific explaination on why I chose the Tokina over the Nikkor, end the end it was just price point.

ziggy53

dixonduke wrote:

I took delivery of the Tokina today. Heading to Colorado in the morning to give it a test drive.......

I wish I could give you all a scientific explaination on why I chose the Tokina over the Nikkor, end the end it was just price point.

Congratulations.

the supervillain

lets see some pics!!
I am still in the air about this

dixonduke

One of the first few pics I am not too embarrassed to share. I find my toes / tripod legs are in most of the shots I am taking. When held level I am very impressed. The lens does have some, what do you call it... "keystone" effect when you are not straight. This shot is not molested but for some straightening for the Christmas tree. No color, contrast or any other mods done. I am maybe 2 feet away from these light boxes when I took this.

Oh well, practice, practice, practice right.

the supervillain

awesome!
glad you are having fun with it!

I cannot wait to get my super wide

hear that santa?

dixonduke

A few from tonight

D90, 11-16mm (Shot at 11mm, f2.8, iso 400, flash) SOOC



D90, 11-16mm (Shot at 11.5mm, f2.8, iso 1250, flash) SOOC



D90, 11-16mm (Shot at 11mm, f2.8, iso 400, flash. This one I cropped and played with the levels a little bit at my attempt at post processing.

Mom & Dad just about at having their fill of my taking their picture.



EDIT: More fun with the new lens.


EXIF


EXIF


EXIF

sidney_jec

*Bumping this thread*

so has Tokina come out with a newwer version of this lens with the necessary corrections or still the 12-24 is the lens of choice???

sidney_jec

dixonduke wrote: »

A few from tonight



EXIF

Did you use CPL??

Matthew Saville

sidney_jec wrote: »

*Bumping this thread*

so has Tokina come out with a newwer version of this lens with the necessary corrections or still the 12-24 is the lens of choice???

Honestly having tested most every ultra-wide out there, and seen many images from certainly EVERY ultra-wide out there, I can't say the 12-24 is the "lens of choice" any more.

Before the Tokina came out for crop, and before the 14-24 came out for FX, yeah the 12-24 was the sharpest thing on the block. It was really impressive. But the Tokina takes things to a whole new level, absolutely hands-down, and I can't recommend either the Nikon 10-24 nor the 12-24, if it is sharpness alone you are thinking about. The Tokina is just gorgeous.

I see that this thread is actually over a year old, before the Sigma 10-20 3.5 ever hit the shelves, so I thought I'd mention that after initial testing and reviews it looks like the original f/4.5-5.6 is a bit sharper in the extreme corners, even stopped down. For landscape shooters that spend all their time at f/8 anyways, I'd get the Sigma 10-20 and just hunt for a good copy.

For photojournalists who truly need the f/2.8, (And event photographers who may be stepping up to full-frame some day) ...the Tokina is champ. I mention FX also because the 11-16 works great on FX at 16mm, even with a thin filter on.

All lenses are going to be at risk for factory defects, and yeah maybe the third parties are a few % more prone, but that's never stopped me from making some AWESOME images with Tokina and Sigma glass.

At the end of the day, a serious shooter will do just fine with any of the following: (Note that I don't mention the Nikon 10-24, because I consider it to be a little less well-constructed than the 12-24...)

The Nikon 12-24, Tokina 12-24, Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20 4.5-5.6. Those lenses are all FANTASTIC, I would only buy one vs the other based on your personal shooting needs. (Range, vs aperture, vs autofocus silence / accuracy, vs full-frame compatibility, etc.)

=Matt=

sidney_jec

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Honestly having tested most every ultra-wide out there, and seen many images from certainly EVERY ultra-wide out there, I can't say the 12-24 is the "lens of choice" any more.

Before the Tokina came out for crop, and before the 14-24 came out for FX, yeah the 12-24 was the sharpest thing on the block. It was really impressive. But the Tokina takes things to a whole new level, absolutely hands-down, and I can't recommend either the Nikon 10-24 nor the 12-24, if it is sharpness alone you are thinking about. The Tokina is just gorgeous.

I see that this thread is actually over a year old, before the Sigma 10-20 3.5 ever hit the shelves, so I thought I'd mention that after initial testing and reviews it looks like the original f/4.5-5.6 is a bit sharper in the extreme corners, even stopped down. For landscape shooters that spend all their time at f/8 anyways, I'd get the Sigma 10-20 and just hunt for a good copy.

For photojournalists who truly need the f/2.8, (And event photographers who may be stepping up to full-frame some day) ...the Tokina is champ. I mention FX also because the 11-16 works great on FX at 16mm, even with a thin filter on.

All lenses are going to be at risk for factory defects, and yeah maybe the third parties are a few % more prone, but that's never stopped me from making some AWESOME images with Tokina and Sigma glass.

At the end of the day, a serious shooter will do just fine with any of the following: (Note that I don't mention the Nikon 10-24, because I consider it to be a little less well-constructed than the 12-24...)

The Nikon 12-24, Tokina 12-24, Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20 4.5-5.6. Those lenses are all FANTASTIC, I would only buy one vs the other based on your personal shooting needs. (Range, vs aperture, vs autofocus silence / accuracy, vs full-frame compatibility, etc.)

=Matt=

Matt
Thanks a lot!!!

dixonduke

sidney_jec wrote: »

Did you use CPL??

Nope just the naked lens. f/22 @ 30 sec or so.

mike95910

wow that picture of the football stadium is simply amazing. Like the pics. Anyone pick which lens finally>?