Reading mode: Light Dark

is the Nikon 12-24 worth the price

Go to last post
PT Lens is cheap if not free. There are a number of them out there that correct lens distortion. I haven't really a need for such wide angle in the near future so I haven't invested that much time into the subject.

As a counterpoint to my arguement against the 12-24 for people, I do know that the 12-24 has its place for wedding photographers that go to extremes to get the entire participants into one photo. I guess it is better than de-fishing a 10.5DX, which some photographers I talk to have resorted to doing.
--
Lens Speed Enables.
http://www.pbase.com/seijikamiya/seiji_kamiya
 
I am sure the 12-24 Nikkor is likely the best in the category. I couldn't be happier with the sharpness and color. It has truly great optical qualities. I will take your word for it that it is better at 17mm. I haven't tried to compare. My preference is not to use it at the extreme wide end. The CA and distortion was not to my liking. I don't know anyone that likes the last of the three photos of the building interior shown and can say that looks great. Maybe a compromise to get that into the shot.

Unless I am going to a national park, I have no problems leaving it behind and going with the 17-55 instead.
--
Lens Speed Enables.
http://www.pbase.com/seijikamiya/seiji_kamiya
 
cuonghuutran said:
Could you show me good examples of scenic photo that has selective
DOF? :-).
Click to expand...
I'm probably going to regret this.......but here goes!

I think the following does have selective D.O.F. (though the composition & end result may not be much to speak about). I deliberately shot it at F2.8 to get this effect:



By the way, this was shot with a Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC on my D50. This thread interests me because having bought this lens, I then noticed other people raving about the Sigma 10-20 F4. I'd like the wider angle, but in the meantime am glad i've got the F2.8

--
Colin Malsingh
-------------------
http://www.pbase.com/cmalsingh
 
Seiji said:
I am not communicating well with you. That is my fault.
Click to expand...
Wow! I like your style but I disagree with you - - to me, your presentation is very clear. Moreover, I feel the same was regarding d.o.f control.
While just a tyro in digital photography, I have 46 years in film photography.
--
ecube - aspiring (strictly a beginner) digital photographer.
 
Seiji said:
The last photo shows the tremendous distortion you get with this
lens.
Click to expand...
That is perspective distortion.
Seiji said:
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.
Click to expand...
Perspective distortion depends only on camera to subject distance. You see it a lot with really wide lenses.
Seiji said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is a rectilinear lens. You can easily reproduce this effect with any really wide lens by greatly varying the subject to camera distances within your photograph.
Seiji said:
I can't use it for anything in
the 12-16mm range except special effects.
Click to expand...
Don't sell this focal range short. Many photographers, like myself, chose this focal length as one of our primary lenses. I'm not looking for special effects.
Seiji said:
If I could get a full
refund, I would like one.
Click to expand...
Since you already spent the money you should try to further educate yourself about your lens and the different causes of distortion. You might learn to like the WA. OTOH, some photographers never really take to lenses this wide.

Good Shooting,

Bill
 
Yes, I don't understand while Tokina does not have QA problems with their 12-24mm while Nikon, at 2x the price, does. Nevertheless, the difference (in flare and CA) makes it worthwhile. I also read that Tokina aperture does not remain constant as you zoom across focal length. Forgot to check this out when I had it.
 
cuonghuutran said:
Yes, I don't understand while Tokina does not have QA problems with
their 12-24mm while Nikon, at 2x the price, does. Nevertheless, the
difference (in flare and CA) makes it worthwhile. I also read that
Tokina aperture does not remain constant as you zoom across focal
length. Forgot to check this out when I had it.
Click to expand...
Incorrect--the Tokina is a constant f/4 max aperature.

I personally have noticed no difference in flare/ghosting between my Nikon and Tokina lenses. The CA is only slightly worse with the Tokina in my experience.

I believe Tokina has some QA inconsistencies also with it's 12-24, but they don't seem to be as widespread as the Nikon issues.

Don

--
A few photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dvd5/
 
OK. The aperture remains constant but the shutter speed varies when you select aperture priority. Could you check that with your lens? I know my Nikon 12-24mm at 24mm, the shutter speed slows down by about 1/3 fstop wrt to other focal length.

Regarding flare, check this out. Both were taken with identical aperture and shutter speed and ISO.

Taken with Nikon:



Taken with Tokina:


DvD5 said:
cuonghuutran said:
Yes, I don't understand while Tokina does not have QA problems with
their 12-24mm while Nikon, at 2x the price, does. Nevertheless, the
difference (in flare and CA) makes it worthwhile. I also read that
Tokina aperture does not remain constant as you zoom across focal
length. Forgot to check this out when I had it.
Click to expand...
Incorrect--the Tokina is a constant f/4 max aperature.

I personally have noticed no difference in flare/ghosting between
my Nikon and Tokina lenses. The CA is only slightly worse with the
Tokina in my experience.

I believe Tokina has some QA inconsistencies also with it's 12-24,
but they don't seem to be as widespread as the Nikon issues.

Don

--
A few photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dvd5/
Click to expand...
 
I would prefer more rectilinear. This lens has wavy distortion. Lines are not straight. Looks more like fourth order. a(X^4) + b(X^3) + c(X^2) + d(X)= Y.

Yes, if you need the width, this is one way to get it. I lost interest due to lack of strong need.
--
Lens Speed Enables.
http://www.pbase.com/seijikamiya/seiji_kamiya
 
The Nikkor 12-24, IMO, is a fantastic superwide lens. You need to become aware of the "limitations" of all ultra wide lenses, as far as sensitivity to perspective distortion, etc. The Nikkor hallmarks are written all over this lens as the sharpness, color and contrast are superb, and my copy is about as sharp as my 17-35.









 
Sheesh. I did not notice the banding on my CRT monitor. But on LCD monitor at work, I saw it. It's ISO 320 and my D200 is the first batch. Oh well, time to send it in to Nikon service.
 
Why is the Sigma 12-24 so rarely talked about?

Its FF
Its Sharp
Its almost distortion-free
Its cheaper than the nikon

The only thing it does have going for it, is it cant take front filters.
 
Seiji said:
I would prefer more rectilinear. This lens has wavy distortion.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence of that. This lens has never shown any wavy distortion in any posted photos or reviews. In fact, according to Bjorn Rorslett's highly regarded lens review "Geometric distortion is low for such a wide lens".
Seiji said:
Lines are not straight. Looks more like fourth order.
Click to expand...
Now you are just being silly. Study up on perspective distortion if you want to learn something helpful for taking better photos.
Seiji said:
Yes, if you need the width, this is one way to get it. I lost
interest due to lack of strong need.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Good Shooting,

Bill
 
Mark53 said:
The Nikkor 12-24, IMO, is a fantastic superwide lens. You need to
become aware of the "limitations" of all ultra wide lenses, as far
as sensitivity to perspective distortion, etc. The Nikkor
hallmarks are written all over this lens as the sharpness, color
and contrast are superb, and my copy is about as sharp as my 17-35.
Click to expand...
Very nice.

Good Shooting,

Bill
 
I took the Getty "blind". I held it above my head and double-checked by chimping afterwards. I don't think I shot with the lens straight. Thus, the Getty photo is not a good photo to evaluate distortion.

I AB'ed this lens with Nikon 15mm f3.5 AIS and frankly, it is 99% as good as this Nikon 15mm lens for architecture shots. I don't know of any other decent rectilinear lens below 15mm (I tried Nikon 14mm but this lens is VERY SOFT on D200). And thus as far as rectlinear is concerned, this lens passes with flying color, IMO.

Wide angle is a difficult beast to build and I think designers have to work with compromises. Just curious, you want rectilinear, fast 2.8, corner-to-corner sharpness and zoom (assuming price is not an issue)? :-) If your shooting style demands such a lens, it would be a quest to search for it.
 
My copy of the Nikon is slightly sharper than the Tokina that I tested, has less colour fringing, and significantly better flare resistance.

For some, this might warrant a 100% price premium, but I would consider the Tokina a better value.
 
cuonghuutran said:
Regarding flare, check this out. Both were taken with identical
aperture and shutter speed and ISO.
Click to expand...
I shoot right into the sun frequently and I really appreciate the superior Nikon performance in that regard. Getting the great colors is often what sells a shot.

Sorry to hear about your banding. Hope it's taken care of without problems.

Good Shooting,

Bill
 
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