Tokina 12-24 for D80...undecided

I am looking at the lens s/h on ebay. After doing a fair bit of reading I have come to the conclusion that it's a good lens/value for money. I realise the sigma 10-20 is slightly wider. Nikon 12-24 is too much money.

Anyone have the tokina.....happy with it.....do it again, or not?

Any input appreciated. Graeme in oz
--

I've always loved taking pictures. Other interests incl motor bike...suzuki C90 cruiser, pushbike riding (just to keep fit after retiring),make things such as kitchens, picture frames,wood turning and other things out of timber (my forte when teaching).

I'm happy w/ my Tokina 12-24, but if I were doing it over, I'd look seriously at the Tokina 11-16 2.8 too.

I am happy with the Tokina. I would not try the 11-16; it is wider than I need. I find myself using the 17-55mm most and less of the 12-24 for the current time. But everything goes in cycles.

If I had the money,I would experiment with the Sigma 10-20. Not for focal length, but for color. It really seems to pop. Sharpness is equal generally between the two. CA can be an issue with the Tokina but is taken care of in PP if a problem.
gk
--
'I'm not as smart today as I will be tomorrow.'

I have one I use with my D200. In wide angle, I also own the 17-35mm f2.8 and the 17-55mm f2.8. Previously I have owned the Nikon 20mm f2.8, the Tokina 20-35mm, and the Sigma 16-35mm.

Wide open it's not very sharp. I use mine for landscape, so it's not an issue for me and I've gotten excellent results. Stopped down it is a touch less sharp than the 17-35mm, which is the sharpest lens of all the above listed lenses. Flare is can be nasty, so keep light sources off the front element. The focus ring is a bit loose, but it has held up fine. Overall, I think its a nice lens.

Graeme ... I have a very brief experience with my friend's Tokina 12-24 (half an hour ten to twenty shots) and have used sigma 10-20 for more than 2 years and it's my favorite lens so far. Both take great pictures yet they have some differences that you may consider before you make your decision. Below are some of my personal observations of these two lenses:

1. the Tokina is generally regarded as a sharper lens than the Sigma, especially around the corners. Personally I think my Sigma is very sharp, at least as sharp as my friend's Tokina, if not sharper. But the lens copy variation seems to be quite big for the 10-20. I went through 2 not so sharp copies before I was satisfied with my current copy. And I've seen quite a few people saying they went thru even more with the sigma in the dpreview forums.

2. Both have nice build quality. I prefer the look and feel of the Sigma over the Tokina, though.

3. Personally I prefer the extra 2mm at the wider end to 4mm at the longer.

4. When shooting with the same camera setting, to me the Sigma appears warmer in color for out-of-camera jpeg shots, though this shouldn't matter since I do quite a bit of PP anyway.

5. With the Tokina you have to use an ultra wide or thin CPL filters and may still get some hard vignetting/black corners @ 12mm, but with Sigma I use a regular B+W CPL and have no such problem even @ 10mm.

I took these two pics with the Tokina, with the first shutter speed 1/8' and second 1/15' both handheld:





And from the Sigma:













--
Joe Y. Jiang
All My Shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/danniao/

Have been using Tokina 12-24 for almost 2 years on a D70. Wide, but not as wide as the Sigma. I myself was undecided between the Sigma and the 12-24 at the time. I was put off by all the bad posts the Sigma seemed to get whilst everyone seemed to love the Tokina.

The Tokina goes up to 24mm so it can be left on for general work.

Colours are rich and contrastly. It rocks under diffuse lighting (slightly cloudy, or under a sky light in a building). Bright lights at night in front of the lens do not flare to badly.

However if the light source is at right angles to the lens (eg above or to the left or right) the Tokina loses it altogether flarewise.

If the light causing the flare is not the dominant source of lighting, the problem is lessened considerably.

Sharpness - never really pixelpeeped but very acceptable at F/4

I use this lens in South Africa, which means if anything goes wrong I have no back up whatsoever.

If you want that really wide look, its going to be Sigma. Should you end up with the Tokina you wont be disappointed at all.

One more thing - its heavy!

Thanks everyone for the input. I will take all this in and hopefully soon get a lens. Which one? I'm not sure. Graeme in oz
--

I've always loved taking pictures. Other interests incl motor bike...suzuki C90 cruiser, pushbike riding (just to keep fit after retiring),make things such as kitchens, picture frames,wood turning and other things out of timber (my forte when teaching).

i love the lens, if you get NX2 you can set it to auto fix the CA the lens can suffer from, since trying the free trial the lens has impressed me more, very satisfied with it.
--
http://illy.smugmug.com

I went with the Nikkor. Best IQ and best resale value (at least here in Brazil). Outstanding lens, still learning to use the WA properly.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus
(Mark Twain)

Very nice WA samples. Looks like Utah, right?
--
JohnE

I have both the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24. As some others have said, I prefer the Sigma for landscapes and creative work, but use theTokina for interior and commercial work. The extra 2mm really does make a difference. I like the build quality of the Tokina better, but optically they are pretty close.
--
JohnE

Hi Graeme

I don't have the Tokina 12-24, but do have the Sigma and am quite happy with it. However if I was buying an ultra wide today I would probably go for the Tokina 11-16 f2.8.

I actually wanted to get this lens in February prior to going to Maui, but the release date was pushed and I bought the Sigma for the trip.

Not sure what your budget is like, but have a look at the 11-16. I've read that it's built like a tank better then the sigma and has less distortion as well. I know a few folks on flickr that have it and they are pretty impressed. Even though with this wide a lens the constant f2.8 isn't that important, it sure doesn't hurt.

Good luck with your choice.

--
Dan



London, Canada
http://www.flickr.com/photos/d_bolger/
D80, rest of gear listed in profile

I have the Tokina 12-24mm and love it. With it and my D80 I have earned more than enough shooting residential real estate to pay for all my camera equipment. The Tokina's build quality is great. It has relatively minor distortion at 12mm that is generally well corrected by PTLens. Shooting landscapes directly into the sun, it has much less flare than my Nikon 18-200mm.
--

'We are awash in data. Knowledge is harder to find. Understanding is uncommon. Wisdom is indeed a rare find.'