Advantages to Gold-Ring Nikkor 12-24?

wfls

I am ready to purchase my fist ultrawide zoom lens. On the advice of a friend, I ordered a refurbished Nikkor 10-24mm DX for $699. Almost immediately, I started having an intense case of buyers remorse

Why? Because I started to read a lot of negative comments on dgrin/dpreview about variable-aperture lenses. I did take a look at the Nikkor 12-24mm DX, but dismissed it because "Why would I pay twice as much for 2mm less on the wide end? I mean, I am buying an ULTRAwide lens, right?"

I still have the option to return the lens for a refund, and wanted to hear your guys opinions. What advantages does the 12-24mm have over the 10-24mm ... besides that beautiful Gold Ring?

wfls

I should point out that although both lenses have similar specs, they have very different internal construction. I know next to nothing about optics, but I figured someone else on this board might be able to take a look at these diagrams and see what I am talking about. The Nikkor 10-24 has an extending barrel, while the Nikkor 12-24 has a fixed barrel. Is there a difference in build quality between extending and fixed barrels, like there is a difference in build quality between variable and fixed aperture?

The Nikkor 10-24 is on the left. The 12-24 is on the right.

NikonsandVstroms

[QUOTE=wfls;1960277Why? Because I started to read a lot of negative comments on dgrin/dpreview about variable-aperture lenses. [/QUOTE]

I've had great experiences with some variable-aperture lenses (specifically Olympus's) so I don't think there is a specific issue with a lens being variable VS fixed aperture. That being said there is a reason that impression is out there since for the most part variable aperture lenses are lower end/lower quality in general beyond simply their aperture.

I don't have experience with that specific lens, though if you do end up wanting to return the 10-24 I'd also look into the Tokina 12-24 F4 ("II" model if you have a body without a built in focus motor) for 300-400 used from a place like KEH with a warranty. It has a little more chromatic aberration and susceptibility to flare than the Nikkor 12-24, but costs much, much less and is just as sharp. I'm bringing this lens up just because I was in the market for an UWA a few months back and the Tokina ended up being my choice.

Tokina also has an 11-16 F2.8 which is one of if not the sharpest DX UWA lens you can buy but it has a limited range, and there is also a 12-28 F4 out now.

From what I'm reading (though admittedly I only did a few min of research) the Nikkor 10-24 you bought is about as sharp as the Nikkor 12-24, the only big knock against it VS the 12-24 is a cheaper build quality.

Matthew Saville

The 12-24's only redeeming quality at this point is that the overall construction might be just a little bit more robust and, well, ready to survive a severe impact on concrete or something. And even then, they're both mostly plastic.

Other than that, (unless you PLAN to drop your lens on concrete, or heavily abuse it in general) ...I'd say get whichever lens you want. The 10-24 DX is a killer lens, with amazing sharpness and an extra 2 mm that really does help sometimes when shooting in confined quarters...

I too have been always on a perpetual quest for the ultimate ultra-wide APS-C lens. Why? Especially since I own three full-frame camera bodies already? Because I hate lugging around full-frame bodies and lenses, and I refuse to bring any of them when traveling for personal adventures. It's just me and my Nikon D5300, and we're happy as can be with the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 plus the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.

However, please understand that the variable aperture creedo is now a myth. They're not just "kit" zooms anymore. Nikon has thoroughly proved this especially with DX lenses, including the likes of the stellar and incredibly sharp 16-85mm, 70-300mm, and now the 10-24mm.

All that a variable aperture lens does nowadays is save weight for those who don't absolutely need a fast aperture at their lenses' telephoto ends, and/or a super-fast aperture in general. The only reason I bought the Tokina 11-16, for example, was because I shoot astro-landscape timelapse type stuff and I absolutely NEED f/2.8 for many different types of scenes. However when I'm working as a general travel photographer, I couldn't care less what my lens' aperture starts at, as long as it's sharp by f/8 or f/11.

By the way, I've personally tested every single ultra-wide DX zoom available for Nikon, from the original 12-24 DX to the latest and hottest new lenses like the Nikon 10-24, the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 (fixed aperture) ...and the Tokina 12-28 f/4 which everybody else seems to forget exists.

The best lenses in the bunch? The Nikon 10-24 really does take the cake for its combination of amazing stopped down sharpness and overall focal range. However the Tokina 12-28 f/4 is even sharper, (and heavier, which may or may not translate into being stronger) ...with a focal range that some might call more practical than others that stop at 20mm or 24mm. Stay away from all the Sigmas and Tamrons, unless you get a good deal on the OLDER, variable aperture Sigma 10-20, which is sharper than the newer one (when stopped down) ...and accepts 77mm filters instead of 82mm.

The Tokina 11-16mm is a champ, with great sharpness (the best around at 11mm, but can have bad copies at 16mm) ...however I usually don't recommend it unless you're ready to put up with the highly restrictive focal range just to get the aperture. Which, like I said unless you find yourself often shooting astro-landscapes or something similar at ISO 6400+, is usually not the case.

=Matt=

wfls

Thanks Matthew. You've done a great deal to help ease my mind. I think I am going to keep the lens and love it to death