Nikon 10-24mm or Nikon 12-24mm

<p>Hi everyone,<br /> I am a new Nikon shooter and currently shooting with a D90 plus Tamron 17-50. I would like to try wide-angle photography and considering the Nikon 10-24mm and Nikon 12-24mm. I can get the older 12-24mm (used) off CL or EB readily for a decent price. Or I can keep saving for 10-24mm. Alternatively, I could also get the Tokina 12-24mm.<br>

<br /> My question to you is which lens would you buy?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br /> Kevin</p>

<p>I would consider the Tokina 11-16/2.8 - especially since you got the range from 17 onwards already covered.</p>

<p>If you are asking between NIKON 10-24 and 12-24, even though I don't have any of them I would go for the 10-24 coz 2 mm on the wide side on a crop camera makes a big difference.</p>

<p>On the other hand I am a happy owner of a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for half the price and I wouldn't change it for anything else than the Nikon 12-24 f/2.8 which costs 4 times more.</p>

<p>> I wouldn't change it for anything else than the Nikon 12-24 f/2.8 which costs 4 times more<br>

Oh much more than that! It doesn't exit! ;-) (sorry couldn't resist)<br>

(It's a f/4)<br>

Cheers, Christophe.</p>

<p>Christopher.... he!he! it's alright! what was it? 14-24 f/2.8? But anyway, we both know you knew what I meant!<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p>I've owned the tokina 11-16, nikon 12-24 and presently have the nikon 10-24. The 10-24 is definitely my favorite.<br>

It's sharper in the corners than the 12-24.<br>

It's wider than both the tokina and 12-24. At such a wide focal length that extra 1-2mm really is noticable.<br>

In my line of work I usually shoot as wide as possible between f8 and f11 anyway so I don't need f2.8.<br>

I've also noticed that I can get away with less PP with the 10-24 than I did with the 12-24 in terms of distortion.</p>

I've recently bought the Tokina 11-16/2.8, and while it's an undoubtedly fine lens, it only focuses down to 30cm, compared to the 24cm of my Sigma 10-20. This really drives me crazy. Gone are the days of a single dandelion made as big as the church spire in the background.

 

The same is true for the Nikon 12-24. It focuses down to 30cm, while the new 10-24 goes down to 24cm. OK, it's 6cm you say, hardly more than two inches, but you have to look at it another way: The distance is measured from the sensor plane. Both lenses are about 9cm long, plus the about 3cm inside the camera, that makes 12cm from sensor to front lens.

 

Thus the distance from closest focus to front lens is 18cm vs 12cm. This sounds like a bigger difference, and it really is, because the picture is taken at the front lens and projected to a virtual plane of 12mm respectively 10mm behind the front lens. This makes for the wide angle. Everything else only bends the light and makes it in reality focus much more behind, i.e. at the sensor or film plane, but that's only to accommodate the physical properties of an SLR.

 

Therefore the big difference between the two lenses is the reproduction ratio of an object at close focusing distance. It's much bigger for the 10-24, because it can be so much nearer to the front lens, and that's what makes for the dramatic foregrounds.

 

In other words: take the Nikon 10-24, it is the much more versatile lens, not only for its longer zoom range, no, especially for its close focusing distance.

<p>I have advised in other forums before. I owned 2 Tokina 11-16's, 1 Nikon 12-24 and 1 Sigma 10-20. Sold them all before I bought the Nikon 10-24mm.The Nikon 10-24mm proved to be the best, Here is why:</p>

<ol>

<li>Sharpness: it might be slightly beaten by Tokina 11-16, maybe not.</li>

<li>CA: Not worse than others. Better than the Tokina 11-16.</li>

<li>Auto Focus accuracy: Spot on. All others sere the same except the Tokina 11-16. My two copies focused accurately art some distance and did not at other distances. Very disappointed. I just can not understand why some praise this lens so much. My copies did not do what they were expected to do. I had had problem lenses before, but the Tokina was the worst. The 2 Tokina 11-16's were my worst experience with any lens for the past 25 years. </li>

<li>Build Quality: perhaps the NIkon 10-24 is lower than all the rest.</li>

<li>Price: I think it is reasonable for a Nikon. Please note however that price is not an issue to me, if the product reliably works as intended.</li>

<li>Range: Obviously Nikon 10-24. How nicely can t be matched with 24-70mm zooms?</li>

<li>Overall: Nikon 10-24 won.</li>

</ol>

 

Bahram,

 

Nice summary. I've read too many reviews, my head's saturated, now I only read the short punchy summaries. Looks like I'll save up for the 10-24 too. If only Nikon makes the equivalent of Canon 24-105 (bundled with 50D). Too much overlap with the current 18-105 kit lens.

<p>I love my Tokina 11-16. Today, I MIGHT spring for the new Nikon instead, it looks very promising.</p>

<p>But... to cloud up the issue a bit, there's a new Sigma 10-24 with a constant f3.5 aperture coming soon, too. can you wait?</p>

The Sigma will be 10-20 as the other one.

<p><strong>Bahram...</strong> "I just can not understand why some praise this lens so much."<br /> That is very easy to answer: coz the lenses are just great.... It seems some of you guys were not as lucky but I think that goes with every 3rd party lens.... Have you heard about the Sigma 30 mm? Same thing, some people love it and some hate it....<br /> But the fact is that I love the wide aperture of the Tokina, I use it..... and it is a great lens.<br>

Let me add... there is no other lens beside the Nikon 14-24 that performs better at 2.8 than the Tokina.... </p>

<p>I have the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and still prefer it over the other ultrawides, including Nikon 10-24mm. The reasons are it's a constant f2.8 and I need the speed. Second is the outstanding image quality, and finally it's built much more solid the the Nikon 10-24mm. It's my favorite lens, and I'm an ultrawide fanatic. I'm a little suspicious of image quality (distortion) from wide range zooms such as 10-24mm, but I haven't personally tried that one. I just know a relatively slow lens would not work for me.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Peter, I believe Sigma announced a new 10-20mm with the constant f3.5 aperture. I was not aware of any 10-24mm from Sigma being announced.</p>

<p>the real question is: nikon 10-24 or tokina 11-16.</p>

<p>the answer: if you dont need the 2.8 and can afford it, get the nikon.</p>

<p>i have the 17-50/2.8 too as well as the 30/1.4. i'm thinking of adding either the nikon 10.5 fisheye or the tokina 11-16 for a kick-ass wide-angle/low-light DX kit. i'll probably go with the fish since i already have the tokina 12-24 (which is a great lens, btw).</p>

<p>@kent: how is the 11-16 at 2.8? i've heard the 10.5 is excruciatingly sharp wide open.</p>

 

<p>I've had the Nikon 12-24 for almost three years, and love it. For wider, I use the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye, and convert to rectilinear in post (if I want to do that).</p>

<p>For a single lens, I think it'd be hard to beat the Nikon 10-24mm.</p>

<p>The Tokina 11-16mm is quite sharp at f2.8--I've sold a couple of shots. Do keep in mind that DOF is narrow and plan compositions accordingly. I stick to lenses f2.8 and faster mainly because I take so many night photos. Since half the average day is the night, I like to make use of the time. I also like to photo inside cathedrals and the extra speed is very useful.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>kent, you have the 17-50 too, right? how's the 11-16 @2.8 compared to the 17-50@ 2.8?</p>

<p><br /> <strong>My question to you is which lens would you buy?</strong><br>

Me? 10-24, if I needed to get an ultrawide. 2mm makes a big difference on wide angles. Especially ultra wides. that said, I've sold off my 10-20 sigma. That fl does not work for me at all. There are many times when walking the street and I go "damn, wish I had the 10-20" but that's like far and few between. Stitching a sequence into a panorama fits my wide angle view of the world better... ymmv. Now wanting a 400mm... that's another story ;-)<br>

Alvin</p>

Only one month I own the Tokina 12-24. My only item of choosing this one, was that it was 400 euro against 550 for a Tokina 11-16 or 500 for Sigma 10-20, and i do not even mention the Nikkors. It is just a fine lens.

<p>I have had the Nikon 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX since 2004 and have tried the new 10-24mm briefly. Based on my limited experience and reading other unofficial reviews, it looks like the new 10-24 is now a superior lens.</p>

<p>Construction quality are about the same between the two lenses. I wouldn't worry about any difference. The 12-24 is made in Japan while the 10-24 is made in China. I think the lower labor cost partly accounts for the lower price for the new lens.</p>

<p>I have no personal experience with the Sigma and Tokina wide zooms.</p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

I knew I can to the right group of people, this is what makes reading Photo.net so informative. I want to thank everyone for their comments regarding their experiences with the different lens. <br>

I think I will hold off on buying the cheaper 12-24mm and save up for the 10-24mm. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is very appealing but I feel that the range is a little short for me and I am hesistant to switch lens in the field (I'm clumsy and always afraid of dropping the lens). <br>

Down the road, maybe I'll invest in a FF system with the 14-24mm f/2.8 like some of you pro's and super-amateurs ;-)<br>

Once again, thank you all.<br>

-Kevin</p>

<p>The 10-24mm is not meant to be a good lens. It's based on the Tamron 10-24mm (just like the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is a version of Tamron's 17-50mm), and the Tamron version is pretty much awful. It is not sharp until at least f/8, and even then it is nothing compared to the Tokina 11-16mm, and the corner sharpness is distinctly poor.<br /> If you really want that extra mm at the wide end, and some more reach than the Tokina, think about Sigma's 10-20mm - either their current one, or their upcoming one with a constant aperture of f/3.5. Although nobody's tested it (it comes out in July), it should prove to be far sharper than the 10-24mm if we assume that it must be quite a bit better than the variable aperture version.<br>

EDIT: it seems my assumption that the Nikon 10-24mm is as bad as the Tamron version is untrue. I am almost certain that they use the same design, so I don't know why this is the case...</p>

<p>After a little research, it seems that while Nikon's design is very similar to Tamron's, they are different lenses, and the Nikon is far superior. Therefore, ignore most of my comment above, but still remember that there are many very good third party ultra wides, especially the Tokinas (11-16mm f/2.8, and - not quite so good - the 12-24mm f/4), and possibly the new Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 that is coming out in July.</p>

<p>I enjoyed the Sigma 10-20mm that I had last year. I am waiting in anticipation for the new f3.5 version, I'm sure it will be half the price of the Nikon 10-24mm.</p>