Nikkor /Tokina 12-24 mm

Ramon Vaquero · Dec 29, 2006

Hello! I´m new in this forum, but I have been reading you since many months ago. I'm proud to be here at last with all Nikon and photography partners!

Does any one tried the Nikkor and or Tokina 12- 24 lenses? Does the Nikkor worth the extra money?
Sorry if this question has been asked before...
All the best!
--
http://www.ramonvaquero.com

Kent Johnson · Dec 29, 2006

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=21421297

I personally own and love my Nikkor 12-24mm but it is expensive and has a very distinct personality.
-Kent

Ramon Vaquero · Dec 29, 2006

--
http://www.ramonvaquero.com

Bill Karadimos · Dec 29, 2006

Nikon Glass is always worth it's price.
--

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - ' Wow! What a ride!'

Mark53 · Dec 29, 2006

Bill Karadimos said:
Nikon Glass is always worth it's price.

That's sure to get some comments, but I have to say, I agree.

emax · Dec 29, 2006

I think the Nikkor has slightly superior IQ, especially wrt flare.

I bought mine used for a reasonable price, otherwise I would have been happy with the Tokina.

Jeffrey Anderson · Dec 29, 2006

Bill Karadimos said:
Nikon Glass is always worth it's price.
--

I copied these from another post about Nikkor vs Tokina 12-24. These photos are by Roman Johnston (I hope you don't mind Roman) and he uses the Tokina. So Bill, are you telling me the Nikon glass will add something to these images that is worth $400 more than the Tokina? I know the Nikon awesome, but it's not worth a $400 premium over the Tokina.

Cliff Fujii · Dec 29, 2006

--
Cliff

Bill Karadimos · Dec 29, 2006

Jeffrey Anderson said:
Bill Karadimos said:

Nikon Glass is always worth it's price.
--

Click to expand...

I copied these from another post about Nikkor vs Tokina 12-24.
These photos are by Roman Johnston (I hope you don't mind Roman)
and he uses the Tokina. So Bill, are you telling me the Nikon
glass will add something to these images that is worth $400 more
than the Tokina? I know the Nikon awesome, but it's not worth a
$400 premium over the Tokina.

Those are fantastic pictures for sure.... But... Try the Nikon and the Tokina without all the PP and you will see a difference. What I am saying is Lens to Lens I do feel Nikon has the edge, You and I both know that you can take a 100 lens and PP the heck out of it and have a great image, But I am not into Photoshop and I believe without PP Nikon would give me a better image out of the camera and leaving more time to shoot. That's just how I feel about it.
--

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming - ' Wow! What a ride!'

TrekSF6 · Dec 29, 2006

Bill Karadimos said:
Those are fantastic pictures for sure.... But... Try the Nikon and
the Tokina without all the PP and you will see a difference. What I
am saying is Lens to Lens I do feel Nikon has the edge, You and I
both know that you can take a 100 lens and PP the heck out of it
and have a great image, But I am not into Photoshop and I believe
without PP Nikon would give me a better image out of the camera and
leaving more time to shoot. That's just how I feel about it.
--

There is no way that the Nikon is going give enough (if any) advantage over the Tokina to justify the price difference. NO WAY! The Tokina 12-24 gives you vibrant colorful jpegs right out of the camera. A little PP and they are amazing. It is by far my favorite lens. If you are so worried about the Nikon logo then buy a Nikon lens cap for it. lol
--
Scott A.

Jeffrey Anderson · Dec 30, 2006

I have the Tokina and use it more than any other of my lenses. I don't disagree that there is a small IQ difference in the lenses with the advantage going to the Nikon; however, with or without PP, the difference in price is too great to justify going with the Nikon, IMO. Moreover, without question, the Tokina's build quality is better.

For the price of the Nikon 12-24, I was bought the Tokina 12-24 and the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

Jeffrey Anderson · Dec 30, 2006

Jeffrey Anderson said:
For the price of the Nikon 12-24, I was bought the Tokina 12-24 and
the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

Jeffrey Anderson said:
For the price of the Nikon 12-24, I bought the Tokina 12-24 and
the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

Brett Sterrett · Dec 30, 2006

Funny you should say, I DO have a Nikon lens cap for my Tokina.

azguy · Dec 30, 2006

To the OP: This question has NEVER been asked before, LOL.

Posts here over the last year have indicated that most believe the two lenses to be very close optically. The Nikkor does have AFS, so that may be a difference for you. But I have the Tokina and have not had any focusing issues.

I went through the same deliberation and decided to buy both the Tokina 12-24mm AND the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye for the price of the Nikkor 12-24mm alone.
--
JohnE
Equipment list in profile

rdash · Dec 30, 2006

You could always have a look at this review. Seems to cover most points and compares Tokina, Nikon and Tamron. http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/review.html .

I bought the Nikkor. I use it less than I should and not as well as I would like.

Osku · Dec 30, 2006

has less (barrel/pinc.) distortion than the Nikon, and the Nikon while it is fine for most, it would be mostly useless for my work. Actually the Sigma lacks all barr/pinc distortions (amazing) and is perfectly usable in FF without any noticeable distortion. (I bought mine originally to be used with my F100).

Slapbass said:
Hello! I´m new in this forum, but I have been reading you since
many months ago. I'm proud to be here at last with all Nikon and
photography partners!
Does any one tried the Nikkor and or Tokina 12- 24 lenses? Does
the Nikkor worth the extra money?
Sorry if this question has been asked before...
All the best!
--
http://www.ramonvaquero.com

--
Osku

Ramon Vaquero · Dec 30, 2006

That's what I supposed, but another posts asure that the difference is high...
Although I love my Nikon stuff, I'm not interested on any brand logos.
On the other hand, does it worth to pay as much as possible for a DX lens?
What will we do if our Nikon body is FF tomorrow?
--
http://www.ramonvaquero.com

Ramon Vaquero · Dec 30, 2006

Jeffrey Anderson said:
Moreover, without question, the Tokina's build quality
is better.

Yes, no doubt about it. Some Nikon EXPENSIVE lenses need a better build quality- take a look to a Nikkor 20mm f2.8 for example.

--
http://www.ramonvaquero.com

d2x3po · Dec 30, 2006

When I got my Nikon 12-24 I had the opportunity to try both out side by side. IMO this is how I saw it

Built quality goes to Nikon (but not by much)
Smoothness goes to Nikon (a lot)
Sharpness goes to Nikon (but not by much)
Color goes to Nikon (but not by much)
Price goes to Tokina (a lot)

So if price is a factor go with Tokina, but if you want the best then go with Nikon

That’s what I did

Dan

Jeffrey Anderson · Dec 30, 2006

d2x3po said:
When I got my Nikon 12-24 I had the opportunity to try both out
side by side. IMO this is how I saw it

Built quality goes to Nikon (but not by much)

What lens were you comparing to the Nikon 12-24? Definetely not a Tokina 12-24 because everyone other than you says otherwise. The build quality of the Nikon is not better than the Tokina.

Again, there are differences between the lenses, as most people will agree; however, are the difference in IQ worth $400? I say no.

Nikkor /Tokina 12-24 mm

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts