Tokina 12-24mm

<p>I'd like to get your advice concerning a lens purchase. Although I would love to buy the Nikon 12-24mm, the price is rather high. The Tokina 12-24 has gotten good reviews, especially compared with other non-Nikon lenses. So, my immediate dilemma is this: should I get a used Tokina 12-24 DX for maybe $350 on ebay, or should I get a new DX II for $600? The main difference between the two is the built-in focusing motor, although there could be other differences. I will be using this for a Nikon D7000 and a D70s, which would focus the DX lens with no problem.<br>

I know, you want to know what I will be shooting with this lens. The answer is - pictures. I am not a pro, and I will not be publishing any photos. I'd just like to be able to take nice wide angle shots of - whatever. I've always preferred WA to tele.<br>

OK. I'm open to your ideas.<br>

Jerry</p>

 

<p>Jerry: To add to your list, consider Sigma 8-16 ... check the review at PhotoZone ... I am mobile and it's difficult to link ... they tested it on the D7000 ... better yet try one in-store if you can ... abt $699 new.</p>

<p>jerry, i've had the Tokina 12-24 since 2007. everything they say about it is true: excellent build, excellent optics, excellent price. AFAIK, there is no difference between version I and II optically, so i would go with the cheaper lens if you have bodies with focus motors. no reason to spend more money than you have to.</p>

<p>A few years ago I compared the 12-24/4 Nikkor and Tokina side by side. The Tokina had such a short focus throw that it autofocused just as quickly as the Nikkor and almost as quietly. Optically it was nearly as good as the Nikkor, even in flare resistance when shooting into the light. At the time I was considering an ultra-wide zoom for photographing boxing from ringside, and I wanted to be sure the Tokina would gracefully handle the inevitable bright lights in the frame. There was just barely perceptible veiling flare and no ghosting, nearly equal to the Nikkor at the edges. I'd definitely consider a good used Tokina, especially from a place like KEH.</p>

<p>I've used the Tokina 12-24 (screwdriver focus) for several years now and it's still a winner. Because of the short focal length, focusing manually, like my D5000, (using a simple DOF scale/range) pics are fine without even using the viewfinder.</p>

<p>There's no depth of field scale on the lens, so I use small cheat card for reference.</p>

<p>I considered that lens when I bought, but ended up with the 11-16 f2.8. Both lenses are solid and easy to use even in manual focus. The focus clutch is such a good idea that I like it BETTER than AF-S over-ride on a lens like that, too.</p>

<p>I'd probably get the used one if it were me.</p>

<p>Very good lens. 12-24mm (18-36mm equivalent) is a much more useful range of focal lengths than some of the other mentioned, in my opinion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Very good lens. 12-24mm (18-36mm equivalent) is a much more useful range of focal lengths than some of the other mentioned, in my opinion.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Even though I chose the 11-16 and lust (a little) after the Sigma 8-16, I agree with this. It is more useful for most people. It's a GREAT range.</p>

<p>I have a Tonkina 12-24 ATX pro DX for several years. I bought it used on ebay. Have used the lens on a D200 and now a D300. I am very pleased with the performance and build of the lens. My thoughts are Photoshop can take care of any minor short comings compaired to the more expensive lens although I have not had to do so.</p>

<p>I tested a Tokina 12-24 and Nikkor 12-24 DX side by side in a store once, with my D80. I did a series of shots at each full stop aperture from f4 to f11. I brought the camera home and compared the shots closely.<br>

The Nikkor was ever so slightly sharper in the corners, but everywhere else the two were essentially identical. I eventually bought the Nikkor, but I wouldn't have hesitated to use that Tokina at all. The color rendition looked the same.<br>

A couple years later I moved to FX, and it turned out the Nikkor worked acceptably well from 16mm onwards, and really well from 18mm onwards. I have heard the same thing about the Tokina.</p>

<p>Wish tokina made a 12-24mm f2.8...</p>

<p>I considered the Tokina 12-24 several years ago, but I bought a Sigma 10-20. Both are very good lenses and cost about the same, but I opted for the wider angle of the 10-20. Have you considered the Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 10-24?</p>

<p>I'd go with the "old" screw drive one. Avoid ebay though, look around the web for a new one, B&H has it for $450. </p>

<p>I took my Tokina 12-24 (screw drive) out for a walk just today... I really like this lens and recommend it often. Ken Rockwell has an article on comparing the four lenses mentioned.</p><div></div>

<p>I've had the original version for a few years now and love it. The new one would theoretically autofocus faster but the original is plenty fast to start with. I use it on a D200 for anything that's in tight quarters -- group shots inside, working a crowded party or reception where you can't back up without people getting in your way. Very sharp. Rugged build. 2.8 would be great but 4 is fine since I'm mostly using it inside with flash at 5.6 or 8 anyhow. If you're using it outside, especially for landscapes or nature, you would likely be stopped down even further.</p>

<p>I'll add in my two cents that this is a really great lens. I've had mine for years. I took it for a serious test drive as soon as I got it to check for flare, CA, and sharpness. I was not at all disappointed and the build quality is outstanding. It has never let me down. I think I paid about $450 new so I was thinking you might want to just consider a new one. But in excellent condition, I guess $350 isn't bad. Mine is the 1st generation. Highly recommended.</p>

<p>Nix that. I see now that you can't get anything new except the 2nd gen and that is $600 so I will say that the $350 for one in excellent condition is probably a very good buy.</p>

<p>I'm happy with my Sigma 12-24MM. Don't use it very often though since I have both a full frame and cropped sensor body.</p>

Ian M, thanks for the tip about B&H. I was looking at a used lens on eBay that is heading toward $450. I didn't realize that the DX was

available new. I was considering the DX II for $600. The DX will be fine, and I'll save $150.

 

Jerry

I bought the new DX from B&H for $450, while the used lens sold on eBay for $594! Sometimes people get carried away

bidding.

<blockquote>

<p>The new one would theoretically autofocus faster</p>

</blockquote>

<p>nope. screwdrive is faster than micromotor. see Lex's comments.</p>