Reading mode: Light Dark

is the Nikon 12-24 worth the price

Go to last post
luxun54 said:
Faced the same choice, saw all the great reviews and great photos
with the Tokina 12-24, bought it -- and got a lemon! I got
consistently soft focus/out of focus shots. I did tests in all
combinations of indoors and outside, near and far subjects, at 12mm
and at 24mm, auto-focus and manual focus. In my research online, I
read that Tokina has had some quality control issues on some of
these lenses -- and I apparently got a bad lens. So I returned it,
got a full refund, and bought a used Nikon 12-24 (still paid more
than for a new Tokina). And I have gotten great results from the
Nikon 12-24, so I am very satisfied; it's a wonderful lens.

My eyes tell me that many people are getting great pictures with
the Tokina 12-24, and my analysis told me it was the best value for
the money. But based on my experience and my subsequent research,
if you decide to go with the Tokina, be sure to buy from somewhere
where you can get a refund or replacement. And test the lens right
away to be sure that you got one that you will be happy with.

--
http://www.pbase.com/luxun54/galleries
Click to expand...
No need to deal with someone (Business) that can give you a full refund. Why would you want a refund??? I want a lens that works correctly. I had a Tokina that didn't oirk correctly. I sent it back to Tokina and after they looked at it and the sample shots I included they sent me a NEW lens that does work correctly.
 
Kaj E said:
... a good copy of the lens is worth every penny. The problem with
all of the super-wides seem to be sample variation. Some reviewers
say the Nikkor is sharper at the wide end some at the long end.
Some say it's sharp all over some say its soft in the corners etc.

Most reviewers seem to agree that it has less CA than the Tokina
and that is has good contrast and color, and less flare compared to
it's rivals. The majority of reviewers (who have actually tested
the lenses) seem to consider it the best of the bunch of the
super-wides.

But there is always sample variation. With these lenses it is
important to be critical and do some cherry picking. My first copy
of the 12-24 Nikkor at f/4-5.6 in the corners was considerably soft
and had CA. The second copy was very good all over (told my local
shop what was wrong with the first lens and what I wanted and they
delivered). It is slightly softer in the corners wide open as all
lenses are, but it is a very good lens. My second most used lens as
a walk around lens after the 17-55.
--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member
Click to expand...
I think that Kaj has really crystallized the issue here. By all accounts, both the Nikon and Tokina 12-24 lenses are fine lenses capable of taking great pictures, with certain limitations due to the apparent manufacturing challenges in making an ultra-wide. The real problem is sample variation, and from reading the posts, this seems afflicts both Nikon and Tokina ultra-wides (and perhaps Sigma & Tamron as well?).

BTW, Kaj, your Chicago photos with the 12-24 are spectacular; I especially like



--
http://www.pbase.com/luxun54/galleries
 
Wasn't for me...

I tested the Nikon 12-24 at the Wolf Camera in downtown Atlanta along with the Sigma 12-24. The Nikon just wasn't all that sharp (at least the sample I test drove) and the build quality seemed quite cheap. The Sigma's inability to take a front screw on filter or Cokin adaptor was a very big minus as well.

So, I took a chance and ordered the Tokina 12-24 sight unseen and have been more than pleased ever since. Picture sharpness is very good with this lens, it is a constant f4 aperture, build quality is very high (much more solid than the Nikkor at twice the price...) and while chromatic abberation does sometimes surface, it is easily corrected with Nikon Capture.

After 14 months shooting with the Tokina, if I could chose differently today - would I? Definitely not - the Tokina would be my choice for sure!

David - from Atlanta, GA
 
I bought the Nikkor more than a year ago and was happy with it until the Tokina came out and I saw the first test shots. I went to my local camera store and they had one so I took it home. I tested both side by side and the Tokina was there nose to nose with the Nikon in all the shots. Fortunately I was able to return my Nikon and kept almost $500 of credit towards another lens.

The Nikkor is a great lens but lacks the "pro" build quality of a $1000 lens. If they were the same price I would have kept the Nikon. I repeat, it is a good lens!

I don't use 12-24 that much but when you really want wide, 12mm is magical. If you have a lot of money buy the Nikon. If you want an intelligent purchase go with the Toki.

Best Regards
 
that this subject always brings up.

I faced the same issues last year when the Tokina was first becoming available. I couldn't test one, but have had prior top of the line Tokina lenses in past years and was very pleased with them for film use. To save $500, compared to the reviews that couldn't seem to draw any significant distinction or preference between them, made a lot of sense.

I opted for the Tokina. I don't use it much, prefering to use the 17-55 for almost all my shots. It's not that I don't like the Tokina, it is just a range I don't use that often, and I can often just move back to improve my shot.

For occasional use, no one has an answer to which is the better lens. This forum discussion has been repeated at least every couple of weeks for a year, and is an irresolveable issue. There is no clear winner.

If money is no object, I'd probably have bought the Nikon. Since it is an issue, I bought the Tokina, even though I could have afforded the more expensive lens. I just couldn't justify paying the extra money without any certainty that I'd be getting a better product.
 
josh007 said:
I do own the 12-24 and I'm happy with it. My problem is why pay
$1000.00US for a F4? I expect 2.8 aperture for a lens aim to the
pros, unless it uses some kind of exotic glass like the 200-400
zoom.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. I read about the 12-24 on the "behind the scenes" feature on Nikon's web site ( http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/05/index.htm ), where one of the designers of the lens (Mr Sato Hauro) says:

"To tell the truth, I was the one who suggested the 12-24mm f/4 specifications! Of course I also intend to pursue a better aperture in the future, but for the first DX Nikkor lens, I like the appeal of optical performance at its maximum aperture of f/4."

So it seems that Nikon has an intention (or at least had at some time) to be working on something like a 12-24 f/2.8. Now, that would be cool.

Tom
 
I have tried 2 Tokina 12-24mm and 4 Nikon 12-24mm. I wanted Nikon because I shoot landscape and backlit scenes quite a bit. Tokina is flare prone and thus not acceptable to me. Nikon 12-24mm on the other has QA issues and many samples are soft. It took me a while, i.e., 4 samples, to find a good copy. Actually, I have two such copies.

In short, if you frequently take very wide angle photos and take backlit scenes, Nikon is worth every penny but be prepared to try different samples until you find a good copy. Otherwise, buy Tokina.

See the following for 12mm, hand-held, taken wide-open at 1/200 sec. With tripod, the photo should be a bit sharper. Photo resized to 4 Mpixel (so that my brother-in-law can compare it -- 4 Mpixel is his camera's resolution).

USM is 50 in NC4.4. NO other post-processing is done.

 
My Nikon 12-24 F4 shows the same corner behaviour at 12mm as Dvd5's. And it is not quite sharp anywhere. It sharpens up at longer focal lengths.

I suspect that with all these lenses we are playing Japanese roulette.

Leif
 
This lens is one that I feel should be at its best at 12mm. I was expecting a rectalinear lens with great performance at 12mm. I didn't get it. I think I will sell it, but then that is when I will discover I need it... Such is life. So far, I haven't used it in 2 and a half years. Just not a focal length I really needed. I bougth the lens when the widest I had was 35mm. As this professional puts it, the 17-35/55 for the most part is the more useful lens.
--
Lens Speed Enables.
http://www.pbase.com/seijikamiya/seiji_kamiya
 
I agree with this thread that a $1,000 f2.8 would be much more attractive. There is already an increase of depth of field due to the wide angle, f4 is almost having no depth of field control, it's all in focus or not the majority of the time. Ok, well its suited then for landscapes and architecture? But, then the distortion kind of disappoints in that category.

A good lens for taking super sharp snapshots inside tight quarters.
--
Lens Speed Enables.
http://www.pbase.com/seijikamiya/seiji_kamiya
 
Seiji said:
I agree with this thread that a $1,000 f2.8 would be much more
attractive. There is already an increase of depth of field due to
the wide angle, f4 is almost having no depth of field control, it's
all in focus or not the majority of the time. Ok, well its suited
then for landscapes and architecture? But, then the distortion kind
of disappoints in that category.

A good lens for taking super sharp snapshots inside tight quarters.
--
Lens Speed Enables.
http://www.pbase.com/seijikamiya/seiji_kamiya
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. For scenic photos, I rarely need to shoot at f2.8.
Some samples of my photos taken with Nikon 12-24mm, at 12mm.





 
I went through two copies of this lens.

Copy 1, was terrible, Flare and extremely soft.

My second copy is a joy to use. Much sharper throughout and more resilient to flare. I have read that the Tokina is more prone to flare.

I would go with the Nikon, but I would suggest you purchase from a dealer that will allow you to test out your copy. That way you can test whether or not your copy is soft.
 
Just as I said. The lens is only good for deep depth of field. There's no option for shallow depth of field. Your photos show exactly what I mean.

Nice pictures by the way. I can not blur the background at all with f4 and the natural depth of field from such a wide focal length. That's why an f2.8 would be more interesting.

The last photo shows the tremendous distortion you get with this lens. Do you see the people sitting in the Getty to the left side? They look like they're being sucked into a black hole. The first time I saw this, I thought I had a broken lens until I realized that all these ultrawide zooms probably do this.

Sure, no problem with you disagreeing with me.

For me the lens is pointless. Too much distortion. It is not the rectilinear lens that I hoped for. I can't use it for anything in the 12-16mm range except special effects. If I could get a full refund, I would like one.

After only 6 months, I replaced it with a 17-55 which is a much better lens for only a couple hundred more. Need a spare 12-24DX in mint condition?
--
Lens Speed Enables.
http://www.pbase.com/seijikamiya/seiji_kamiya
 
Could you show me good examples of scenic photo that has selective DOF? :-). I am not out to convince to like this lens but your argument that you want DOF with scenic photos run against my preference (and many others).
 
I've been following this thread and 2 things caught my attention:

1) The Nikon "purists" are very calm about this Nikon been compared to a 3rd party lens. They usually agree that the Tokina is a worthy oponent, even at half the price.

2) They who have decided to stay with the Nikkor had to go through at least two copies, and in some cases 3 and 4!? This is not normal for a Nikon lens, and less so for a "pro" $1000 lens.

I believe the 12-24 DX has to be one of the most controversial Nikon lenses. I know in my case, even though my copy seemed to be OK and I was getting beautiful photos with it, I wasn't confortable holding this plastic lens in my hand and remembering the sticker price. This doesn't happen to me with any other Nikon lens that I own or owned.
 
Seiji said:
For me the lens is pointless. Too much distortion. It is not the
rectilinear lens that I hoped for. I can't use it for anything in
the 12-16mm range except special effects.
Click to expand...
Hi Seji,

I don't agree here. The stretching effect in the edge that you don't like is a direct result of a rectilinear lens with very wide angle of view. It sounds funny but a fisheye like the 10,5 (with massive distortion) will give a more pleasant of small details look in the extreme edges.

Talking about barrel distortion, the 12-24 is pretty good. Atround 17mm, it is close to perfect, while the barrel distortion of the 17-55 at 17mm is pretty strong and easily visible.

I like the 12-24 for wide angle of view (architecture), stopped down to f8 ... f11.

Best regards
Volker
 
I am just saying I agree with the other poster's comments, that that level of freedom (f2.8) might make the lens more interesting to me. I am not communicating well with you. That is my fault. I am not saying that I would prefer a picture of Monument Valley or Bryce Canyon with only a catus in the foreground visible.

--
Lens Speed Enables.
http://www.pbase.com/seijikamiya/seiji_kamiya
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top