Nikon 12-24: New or Used?

I have a shoot coming up soon that will require a wide angle lens, preferably a zoom. I just had a disastrous

experience with the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, and I would rather not take a chance on the 3rd party sample-variation lottery

again. I have just bought a used Nikon 12-24 f4, an apparently a good copy although the upper right corner of

the frame is softer than the upper left when shot wide open. This clears up by f8.

 

Given that this lens was not obtained at a bargain price (it was within ~$100 of new), I am giving serious

consideration to returning it and buying a new one, if for no other reason than the warranty (5 years vs 90 days). The

only reservation I have is that I've read about some amount of sample variation in this lens as well. Whether this

comes as grousing from nit-picking pixel peepers or objective reviewers, I don't know. I do know that I would not be

happy if I had to go through two or more of these in order to get acceptable performance...

 

Any advice from those who own this lens?

Wow, my experience with my 11-16 has been GREAT. It's my favorite. Sorry yours was so bad.

 

I would definitely buy an AF-S lens new for the warranty. Lots of electronics, lots that could go wrong, and that particular

lens is not built as solidly as something like the 70-200 or 17-55.

 

Buy new.

I have the Tokina 12-24 f4 which I bought used. There may be variations in quality between samples but the one I got definitely is a good one. I'm very satisfied

approx $100 is not that much of a difference. Buy new.

"Whether this comes as grousing from nit-picking pixel peepers or objective reviewers, I don't know. "

 

The same argument holds true for your comment about your lens being asymmetric. If I would see a relevant asymmetry in my lens I would return it - used or new. You need to decide if it is relevant or not :-)

 

I would never buy an extreme wide angle zoom from any source without the possibility of return or first testing and then paying.

My experience so far with my Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 has so far been outstanding. It's better than the Nikon 12-24mm I used. However, regarding used lenses, an ultrawide is tougher to manufacture from what I've heard. There's always a chance one being sold used is a lemon, and if buying from a private individual you are rolling the dice somewhat. Otherwise, I'm not afraid to buy used from KEH or MPEX. I don't see much point in owning an f4 lens if it has to be used at f8.

 

 

Kent in SD

My personal guess is that most of the so called "sample variations" is the result of photographer errors.

I usually don't get to check multiple samples of a lens, but I did have three different samples of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and they are remarkably similar, including the flaws.

 

If a used lens is uneven, perhaps it has been dropped. That was what happened to my 17-55mm/f2.8 DX. I sent it back to Nikon for repair but it is not quite aligned perfectly any more. I also got to check that against a couple other 17-55 and they are also very similar.

 

My rule of thumb is that for a lens still in production, a used one in excellent condition should cost about 80% of its new value. There are some exceptions if the lens is in short supply or out of favor. The 12-24 is certainly not in short supply. For a $900 lens, the used price should be more like $720 or so.

Return the used lens and purchase a new sample, Howard. $100.00 for 5 years of warranty is worth it.

 

I have the Nikon 12-24mm f4 and fortunately I got a good sample. At 12mm wide open, images are slightly soft, uniformly,

at all four corners. At 24mm, performance of this lens is really superb. Flare is extremely well controlled for a wide angle

zoom lens.

I found a new owner for my first 12-24. The second copy is considerably better. If your threshold has been exceeded by copy #1, buy 'new' with hassle-free exchange option from reputable authorized Nikon dealer.

The used version will be returned this week. Thanks.

I used to own a Nikon 12-24 and sold it to buy a Sigma 10-20 and have no regrets about that decision. Others (i.e. Thom Hogan) also like the Sigma 10-20.

I have the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 DX. It was one my favorite environmental portrait lenses for my D2X. I know shoot the 14-24mm

f/2.8 because I switched the D3. I still have the 12-24mm f/4 DX in my backup kit. It is a well made lenses that I have no complaints with.

I shot it for three years and was my main walk about lens.<div></div>

I would return the lens if I were you immediately and buy a new one from the dealer where you can go back and

exchange it again if necessary. Once you know or think something is not right with your lens you will never be

happy with it. As for 11-16 the first sample I got was also a dud. See my quick comparison here

 

http://www.pbase.com/sngreen/tokina

 

Make sure you select the original size and then toggle between next and previous.

 

The 12-24 which I have used for over a year is flawless and the new replacement I got for 11-16 is excellent,

simply superb, but the first variant was not sharp through the entire range. The tech support from Tokina,

Netherlands confirmed the lens was not good and they simply replaced it. The funny part was when he told me over

the phone they are constantly restocking this lens since it is so popular. Wow! No kidding!

 

Not only the first and the second versions were different in sharpness but they also looked different. Strange as

it may sound but I think they had some kind of a different coating on them. When I held both 12-24 and the first

sample of 11-16 against the light I could clearly see 12-24 had a blue cast on the class whereas 11-16 was very

much Pentax like green. From any angle I looked. The second copy has a bit brownish tint to it but is very similar

to 12-24 otherwise.

 

I do not regret that I bought this lens; can not complain about the price, it is built well and delivers

excellent results. But the lesson learned is that it is always better to buy optics from the local dealer when I

can walk in the very next day and exchange it. Never buy from the internet unless there is a significant saving,

the dealer is known and you have bought from them before, or the lens can not be bought elsewhere. The hassle

is often not worth it.

 

Good luck to you and happy shooting,

 

- sergey

"sample variation" seems to be not uncommon these days, which is interesting as i've never had an issue with any of my 3rd party glass, most of it bought online, through adorama, B&H, and amazon, all of whom have good return policies.

 

for a $100 difference,it's probably worth it to get a warranty and the satisfaction that you are getting a new lens. OTOH, the tokina 12-24 has the same constant f/4 aperture as the nikkor, better build, and highly equivalent IQ--according to photozone, they share the same characteristics, such as sharpest at 18-24mm. a new 12-24 is $500 with a 3-year warranty, so you will have to determine if the cost differential is worth it to you.<div></div>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7703572-md.jpg"></center>

 

 

<center>-corrected-</center>

Last weekend I was comparing Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16. Also I have rented Nikon 12-24 and 14-24. The

results were interesting. In house Sigma was sharper than Tokina, however outside Tokina was a little bit sharper. I

think because outside I compared long distance (about 30-40 feet), and inhouse short distances 5-15 feet. Even if

Sigmas corner were pretty soft, Sigma mixes colors better -- and that was desicive for me. Another interesting thing

I noticed is that Sigma overexposed 1/3-1/5 step more than Tokina in almost all pictures. I could not clarify that. I

think because Sigma gives much warmer colors (visible clearly in .NEF format), and that was luring the D200

system. I keep Sigma and I returned Tokina. Generaly I liked Nikon 12-24, and I would buy it instead if the price

would be closed to the Sigma level. It was just a little, little bit sharper then Sigma and Tokina.

 

However, Nikon 14-24 is from another class. It is big, heavy and it was not much sharper than the other lenses, but

the colors it gave were incredible. I have never seen so much clarity and intensivity in colors. I already desided to buy

it when I have resources.