-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Tokina 11-16 vs 12-24
- Thread starter Namtarn
- Start date
Mike Neary
Senior Member
Thanks for these links, highly interesting! And great to have another reference for lens reviews. I even started to remember some almost forgotten French
Cheers
Mike
The Nikkor 10-24 is getting a difficult time here:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/443-nikkor_1024_3545
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=32473988
Good luck with your search. Kindly let us know your findings too.
Cheers,
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/443-nikkor_1024_3545
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=32473988
Good luck with your search. Kindly let us know your findings too.
Cheers,
Nikon 10-24 the best? I've never seen that clear statement before. It has the cheapest build of the 3 for sure and I believe the jury is still out on the IQ. I'd love for it to be the clear winner as it has the best range and it is made by Nikon.
I'm interested in this thread as I just damaged my Tokina 12-24 (which I think is great for the money) and may need to repair or eventually replace it. I probably would have bought the 11-16 2.8 if it had been available at the time I bought mine. The cost difference between all these lenses is negligible to me, so I'm looking for the best of the 3 period. I don't believe there is a clear winner as they all have advantages and shortcomings. I'm even considering the Nikon 12-24 as it has started to drop to a more reasonable price.
The more I research, the more confusing it is. I came to the conclusion that this is because for DX UWA zooms, there is a well balanced trade-off between the top three: Tokina 11-16 (faster), Tokina 12-24 (longer reach), Nikon 10-24 (the best, but cost much more)
This seems like a good advise to me.
At least in my case I reached to somewhat similar conclusion.
I often feel quite restricted at 17mm of my Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 but after I borrowed Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 for several days, it turned out that in order to get some remotely acceptable shot, I have to think a lot before pressing the shutter at 11 mm .
In the same time I found 16 mm to be frustratingly short.
So in the end I decided that for me, 12-24 F/4 is probably more reasonable compromise. At least in terms of focal length.
As for the F/2.8 aperture, it seemed to me that this particular copy of Tokina 11-16 is quite soft wide and near to wide open (it's normal, I guess, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy with it ).
But still, it's better to be able to open to F/2.8 in case you do not have other choise ...
At least in my case I reached to somewhat similar conclusion.
I often feel quite restricted at 17mm of my Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 but after I borrowed Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 for several days, it turned out that in order to get some remotely acceptable shot, I have to think a lot before pressing the shutter at 11 mm
. In the same time I found 16 mm to be frustratingly short.
So in the end I decided that for me, 12-24 F/4 is probably more reasonable compromise. At least in terms of focal length.
As for the F/2.8 aperture, it seemed to me that this particular copy of Tokina 11-16 is quite soft wide and near to wide open (it's normal, I guess, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy with it
).But still, it's better to be able to open to F/2.8 in case you do not have other choise ...
marco1974
Senior Member
I had the Tokina 12-24 and IMO:
- it's a fine lens, built to pro standards and with good sharpness and contrast when stopped down to f/8 or so
- it's really soft in the corners at f/4
- it suffers from noticeable CA and some PF
- at f/2.8 it is already noticeably sharper than the Tokina 12-24 at f/4
- at f/5.6 - 8 it's all you could ever wish for sharpness- and contrast-wise
- while it also suffers from some CA in the corners, I found it easier to fix (e.g. using Photoshop CS2's lens distortion filter).
marco1974
Senior Member
Genix,
Thanks for spending your time to help me (and apparently quite a few other readers here too).
You made very good point for me to go longer to 24 mm. So, the Tokina 11-16 is out for me even though it also has good IQ.
Now I am left with two choices, Tokina 12-24 DX II or Nikkor DX 10-24 .
IF I forget about the money for now, I think the Nikkor has significant advantage because:
1. It has wider range (goes down to 10 mm)
2. It will obviously work well with Nikon DX cameras (flash, AF, metering, etc.)
3. Nikon is confident enough to put it's name on this new release. (I do not want to get into an argument about this.) This should count for something anyway.
4. It's sibling, the Nikkor 12-24, have received very good reviews. Although I do not have a confirmation of the Nikkor 10-24's good IQ, it is hard for me to imagine Nikon coming out with a new (and updated?) lens that is materially inferior to the older version. The verdict is still not in, but, IMHO, the odd is against that happening.
IF I put the money factor back into the picture (about USD 520 for Tokina 12-24 DX II and USD 920 for Nikkor 10-24, both gray market prices where I live) and consider the good IQ of the Tokina 12-24, it will be hard to justify going for the Nikkor 10-24 unless it has a few undiscovered surprises.
.....may be I should do less thinking and more shooting instead! Just how I am anyway
Thanks for spending your time to help me (and apparently quite a few other readers here too).
You made very good point for me to go longer to 24 mm. So, the Tokina 11-16 is out for me even though it also has good IQ.
Now I am left with two choices, Tokina 12-24 DX II or Nikkor DX 10-24 .
IF I forget about the money for now, I think the Nikkor has significant advantage because:
1. It has wider range (goes down to 10 mm)
2. It will obviously work well with Nikon DX cameras (flash, AF, metering, etc.)
3. Nikon is confident enough to put it's name on this new release. (I do not want to get into an argument about this.) This should count for something anyway.
4. It's sibling, the Nikkor 12-24, have received very good reviews. Although I do not have a confirmation of the Nikkor 10-24's good IQ, it is hard for me to imagine Nikon coming out with a new (and updated?) lens that is materially inferior to the older version. The verdict is still not in, but, IMHO, the odd is against that happening.
IF I put the money factor back into the picture (about USD 520 for Tokina 12-24 DX II and USD 920 for Nikkor 10-24, both gray market prices where I live) and consider the good IQ of the Tokina 12-24, it will be hard to justify going for the Nikkor 10-24 unless it has a few undiscovered surprises.
.....may be I should do less thinking and more shooting instead! Just how I am anyway
Genix
Senior Member
Namtarn,
Thank you for the compliment. I enjoy helping where I can. It's understandable
to want to think things through when money is a primary issue.
I'd still suggest the Tokina 12-24 to you - given finances. Even with the
added CA (which is not much BTW), it is very easily corrected with NX2
or Photoshop - just like the Nikkor will.
After you do some shooting with whatever you choose, I think you will be
more comfortable with your decision as the results will build confidence and
experience. Besides, shooting is one of life's great quiet pleasures that help
give one a new perspective on the world around them.
Good Luck...
Thank you for the compliment. I enjoy helping where I can. It's understandable
to want to think things through when money is a primary issue.
I'd still suggest the Tokina 12-24 to you - given finances. Even with the
added CA (which is not much BTW), it is very easily corrected with NX2
or Photoshop - just like the Nikkor will.
After you do some shooting with whatever you choose, I think you will be
more comfortable with your decision as the results will build confidence and
experience. Besides, shooting is one of life's great quiet pleasures that help
give one a new perspective on the world around them.
Good Luck...
Genix,
Thanks for spending your time to help me (and apparently quite a few other readers here too).
You made very good point for me to go longer to 24 mm. So, the Tokina 11-16 is out for me even though it also has good IQ.
Now I am left with two choices, Tokina 12-24 DX II or Nikkor DX 10-24 .
IF I forget about the money for now, I think the Nikkor has significant advantage because:
1. It has wider range (goes down to 10 mm)
2. It will obviously work well with Nikon DX cameras (flash, AF, metering, etc.)
3. Nikon is confident enough to put it's name on this new release. (I do not want to get into an argument about this.) This should count for something anyway.
4. It's sibling, the Nikkor 12-24, have received very good reviews. Although I do not have a confirmation of the Nikkor 10-24's good IQ, it is hard for me to imagine Nikon coming out with a new (and updated?) lens that is materially inferior to the older version. The verdict is still not in, but, IMHO, the odd is against that happening.
IF I put the money factor back into the picture (about USD 520 for Tokina 12-24 DX II and USD 920 for Nikkor 10-24, both gray market prices where I live) and consider the good IQ of the Tokina 12-24, it will be hard to justify going for the Nikkor 10-24 unless it has a few undiscovered surprises.
.....may be I should do less thinking and more shooting instead! Just how I am anyway
hflavo
Leading Member
Since Nikon introduced the 10-24mm, used prices for the 12-24 have dropped further....with careful shopping it is possible to find them now in the mid-$500 range. This was and still is a superb lens, right up there with the best and outperforming any widely-available fixed focal length lense in this range that Nikon produces.
--
HARRY LAVO
68 years and lovin it!
A couple of NIkon bodies | All the glass I need| Manfrotto pods and clamp system| Enough software to still be low on the learning curve
--
HARRY LAVO
68 years and lovin it!
A couple of NIkon bodies | All the glass I need| Manfrotto pods and clamp system| Enough software to still be low on the learning curve
I don't think that is quite right. The verdict was 4 stars optically, but only 2.5 value-for-money (remembering that the money is a good bit more in euros than in US$). Personally, I think the rating is perverse: I just can't see how US$300 makes the difference between 2.5 and 5 stars value-for-money, especially with half a star difference in optical quality. It is true that the lost half a star had to do with the Tokina family failing of high CA, which you can fix, but still. Build quality is another issue, and if that is important to you the Tokina wins easily.
The Tokina 11-16 is reviewed on Photozone for Canon mount - which should not make too much difference. The summary is "the best UWA zoom available", with 5 stars for value. It is just a matter of whether the range is right.
--
'I am the living proof that blondes are not stupid'. Paris Hilton
Yeah! Tokina 12-24 it will be. It's good and much cheaper. Another possibility that I will find out soon is that I may get a used Nikkor 10-24 from my uncle for about USD 630-700. He is moving to Compacts because they are better for his wrist.
Looking forward to it.
Thanks.
Namtarn
More UWA comparison:
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/index.html
--
Namtarn
Panasonic TZ7
Nikon D90
Nikkor DX 18-105 VR, Nikkor 70-300 VR, Nikkor DX 35 f/1.8
http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/index.html
--
Namtarn
Panasonic TZ7
Nikon D90
Nikkor DX 18-105 VR, Nikkor 70-300 VR, Nikkor DX 35 f/1.8
I finally got a used (in great condition) Nikkor 10-24 from my uncle at a friendly price of USD 680. A new one would cost about USD 870 locally, while a new Tokina 12-24 DX II would cost about USD 570, both gray market prices.
Thank you very much for all your helps
--
Namtarn
Thank you very much for all your helps
--
Namtarn
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum