Tokina 12-24 f/4 ATX Pro, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or Nikon 12-24 f/4 AF-S DX ?

<p>Thanks is advance to everyone. Trying to decide which of these lenses would be the best to shoot indoors ( dressing room / reception / ceremony group shots at a wedding ) ? Whoever have experience using any on those lenses for this kind of pictures, could you please give me your opinion and if it is possible, can you post some pics please ? Have a D300 by the way. Have you made some comparison between those lenses ? </p>

<p>Best regards, by the way, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2011 to all of you.<br>

Maurice.</p>

<p>indoor lens would be the 11-16mm 2.8.</p>

<p>How about Nikon's 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX? In that range, each extra mm makes a difference, and it also means you don't need to use the extreme end of the lens as often and should get better results.</p>

<p>Thank so much Dave. Have you shot with one of them ? Any suggestion about how to use it with or without the SB-800 ? </p>

<p>Thanks Shun, but I would like to have the capability to use a wide aperture without flash for some pics at the wedding and f/3.5 is not the recommended one for a low light conditions inside a room, nevertheless, 10-24 is much wider than 11-16 and more range at the end zoom but still not that fast as a f/2.8 or f/4. Have you use any of the lens posted for me ? </p>

<p>I am reading a book named Digital Wedding Photography by Glen Johnson that by the way, it is a great one and he uses, almost always, 17mm for most of his pictures, but I used before the Tokina 11-16 and did liked how wide it was but never used it that much 'cause I returned it after 3 days. I am tempted to buy it again, but before I make my decision, I must know how the other two are in comparison with this one. 12-24 sounds a great range, more than 11-16 but don't know if the Tokina version is up to the Nikon, quality talking. </p>

<p>obviously the faster lens would be better for indoor shots without flash, but overall, i think the 11-16's range is just too limiting. having shot extensively with the tokina 12-24, i can tell you that the long end gets used as much or more than the wide end, except for landscape pics. if i'm shooting people with that, i prefer to stop down to 5.6-f/8, so i use flash for indoor shots.</p>

<p>i haven't been too impressed by the 11-16's wide open performance, and in general, you give up a lot of range just to gain 1mm, and if you're stopping down anyway, the point becomes kind of moot.</p>

<p>have you shot with an ultrawide before? they can be kind of tricky, as shooting close-up at wider focal lengths can result in a lot of distortion, especially faces. i'm not sure i would experiment at a wedding.</p>

<p>anyway, here's a couple pics...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>and one at 12mm. btw, the tokina 12-24 is just as good as the nikon, and the 11-16 is even better.</p><div></div>

<p>one more, at 19mm...</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>but I would like to have the capability to use a wide aperture without flash for some pics at the wedding and f/3.5 is not the recommended one for a low light conditions inside a room, nevertheless, 10-24 is much wider than 11-16 and more range at the end zoom but still not that fast as a f/2.8 or f/4. Have you use any of the lens posted for me ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maurice, you yourself are considering the Tokina 12-24mm/f4 and Nikon 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX, but somehow a 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not fast enough? That lens is f3.5 on its wide end and is therefore a little faster than those 12-24mm/f4 you are considering. It is a slightly slower f4.5 on it long end, but presumably you have other faster options at 24mm.</p>

<p>I have used all of the Nikon lenses mentioned in this thread.</p>

<p>you don't get very good bokeh with an ultrawide, so the benefits of shooting at 2.8 are debatable--for subject isolation, a 30/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 or 70-200/2.8 would be better. OTOH, if you stop down to f/6.3-f/8 with an UWA, pretty much everything is in focus always, so i just use flash in those situations. i'm sure the 11-16 could possibly be useful in that situation, but practice makes perfect with specialty lenses like that.</p>

<p>maurice, are you using two bodies? or just the d300? if so, i'd maybe stick to a 17-xx 2.8 unless you want to be changing lenses very frequently.</p>

<p>You are right Shun, I missed that, f/3.5 is faster than f/4. <br>

Eric, I almost do not have experience with ultra-wide, but of course if I buy any of those lenses, I will have enough time to practice with them before the wedding. As I said before, I had the 11-16 for 3 days and it does not feel like having a lot of range but it is optically talking, very sharp and reliable in low light conditions and this is what I am considering. Just wanted to know if the other two, for low light ( no flash ) are up to this lens, the Tokina 11-16. I do like the range of 12-24 / 10-24 but they are f/4, so how good they are in low light ? </p>

<p>According to some reviews, the Tokina 12-24 is not as sharp as the Nikon but better build quality than the Nikon. The only one that can compete with the Nikon in the quality arena, is the Tokina 11-16 and probably better than the Nikon in this regard and much better build quality. </p>

<p>Eric, I will use two bodies. I do have a D300 and I probably rent another D300 for the wedding. I will have the 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR II in one camera and the other, with the ultra-wide ( Tokina 11-16, 12-24 or Nikon 12-24 ). I will also have in my bag, the Nikon 16-85, 50 f/1.8, 35 f/1.8 and two speedlights : SB-800 and will rent or probably buy, the SB-900. </p>

<p>Changing lenses ? Yes, I will probably change from the ultra-wide to the medium zoom Nikon 16-85 VR with flash for some of the pictures. Have not consider very deep the need of the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 yet. I am still doubtful about it. I think if I need some pictures to be taken within 17-55, I can use my 16-85 with flash and get away with it, so basically I am concentrating in a zoom ( 70-200 ) and the ultra-wide. What do you think ? </p>

<p>The 16-85 is f/3.5 at 16mm and f/4 at 24mm - so you gain nothing or very little in terms of shutter speed with either the 10-24/3.5-4.5 or the 12-24/4 in the range were the lenses overlap with your 16-85; you are gaining the advantage of a wider range that might mean less lens changes. The 11-16 has the narrower range but a full stop on the f/4 zooms and a bit less on the 10-24. It seems to come down to whether you want the overlap or not? You can basically consider the 11-16 as a prime with a little wiggle room - is that sufficient for what you want to do?<br>

<br /> I own both the 11-16/2.8 and the Nikon 12-24/4; I wanted to get rid of the latter when I purchased the former but I find it a too useful range when I am just taking one wide-angle lens and don't expect the need for the f/2.8 (which I purchased specifically for indoor use and to match up with the 17-55). The 11-16 is sharper but seems to hunt a bit more for focus than the 12-24 on my D300.<br>

If you have to decide between the 10-24 and the two 12-24; then IMO there are two things to consider. If on a budget, get the Tokina 12-24 - you aren't giving up much and some say it's even at par with the Nikon 12-24. If cost isn't a factor - then the 10-24. It's optically a tad above the Nikon 12-24, especially in the corners, and the variable aperture isn't a big deal. Plus, it is the widest of the bunch. <br /> That means that the decision is either between the two Tokinas if cost is a factor or between the 11-16 and the 10-24 if it isn't.</p>

<p>Maurice, I recommended the 11-16mm 2.8 because it is a constant f2.8 lens, which is very handy when shooting in low light. Haven't shot with one personally, but most all the reviews I've read of the lens say it is very sharp at all focal lengths. I have the Nikon 10-24mm f3.5-4.5, and while I do like the focal range a lot, the quality in the corners isn't what it could be (Tokina 12-24mm f4 is sharper in the corners than this lens, as is the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6). You can use flash with these lenses, make sure to use the diffusion cover over the flash to expand the light coverage when shooting at 10-12mm.<br>

<a href="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/398830830_dYsye-XL.jpg">Here</a> is a photo I took with my Nikon 10.5mm f2.8 DX Fisheye lens and the Nikon SB-800 flash, with the diffuser dome installed. Amazing that the diffuser dome (that was included with the SB-800) covered the entire frame!</p><div></div>

<p>Can't say for the Nikon, but while the 12-24mm is a great lens, the 11-16mm kicks butt. Also the 12-24mm has a lot more CA...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>obviously the faster lens would be better for indoor shots without flash, but overall, i think the 11-16's range is just too limiting. having shot extensively with the tokina 12-24, i can tell you that the long end gets used as much or more than the wide end, except for landscape pics...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p><em><strong>+1,</strong></em><br>

I also use the 12-24 tokina and I would have upgraded to their 2.8 if the range wasn't so limiting. 16mm at the long end isn't very useful for people/event shooting. Even if you have the 70-200 on the second body, the 17-70mm is too huge a gap for people / event. It's a shame that there's no 17-35mm f2.8 FX equivalent in the DX line up... </p>

<p>I have the 11-16 and love it. I chose it over the Tamron (which sucked), Sigma (which were pretty good) and Tokina 12-24 options because I wanted to be able to shoot at f5.6 or f4 and be in the sweet spot of the lens instead of wide open. i use it for non-people photos almost exclusively. I don't regret it, but I'd NEVER have bought it for people and event shooting. I'd have bought the 12-24 and just shot with a flash or higher ISO. 16 is too wide for almost anything I'd shoot in such cases.</p>

<p>I'd get either the Nikon or Tokina 12-24 f4 lenses.</p>

<p><em>Just wanted to know if the other two, for low light ( no flash ) are up to this lens, the Tokina 11-16. I do like the range of 12-24 / 10-24 but they are f/4, so how good they are in low light ? According to some reviews, the Tokina 12-24 is not as sharp as the Nikon but better build quality than the Nikon.</em></p>

<p>f/4 is pretty slow for low light. even with higher ISOs, you get a dimmer VF. that's not how you want to shoot an UWA, optimally--unless you're on a tripod and can use a slower shutter. i prefer the 35/1.8 or 30/1.4 for this application. as far as sharpness, it's basically a tie between the tokina and nikon 12-24's, depending on focal length and sample variation. Tokina definitely has better BQ. i've had the 12-24 for four years and never regretted not getting the nikon. put it this way: at 6.3-f/8, the lens is just so contrasty, you don't really feel like you're missing much, if anything.</p>

<p><em>I will have the 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR II in one camera and the other, with the ultra-wide ( Tokina 11-16, 12-24 or Nikon 12-24 ).</em></p>

<p>ok, good to know.</p>

<p>but idk maurice, you're kind of stuck on this 'i'll shoot the 11-16@2.8' idea, which i'm saying isn't all that practical. for one thing, none of the UWA DX zooms are optimized for shooting wide-open. the 11-16 goes to 2.8, but it's not optimized for 2.8--if you understand what i'm saying--unlike the 17-XX 2.8 DX zooms.</p>

<p>not saying you can't shoot wide open with the 11-16 if you want,but that lens will be better stopped down, although limited range is more of a concern IMO--which is why i would go 10-24 or 12-24 personally. not sure why you can't use flash for everything but the actual ceremony itself, anyway--is there some requirement you have to shoot available-light?</p>

<p>also, if you stick the 11-16 on one d300 and the 70-200 on another, you'll have a huge gap between 17-69 on DX. i've shot events (not weddings) PJ-style with the 12-24 and 50-150 on DX, which is a far less extreme chasm than an effective 24mm-105mm black hole, which is what you'd have with those two lenses. but even then, i usually carry 17-50 or 28-75, plus a flash.</p>

<p>which brings us to the next hurdle:</p>

<p><em>I think if I need some pictures to be taken within 17-55, I can use my 16-85 with flash and get away with it, so basically I am concentrating in a zoom ( 70-200 ) and the ultra-wide. What do you think ?</em></p>

<p>why 16-85? if you're going 2.8 with an UWA, why would you want to use a slow standard zoom? do you realistically think you'll use an UWA that much? especially one that only goes to 16mm? personally, i would much rather have 17-200@2.8 with a 55-70 gap than what you are proposing. also, if available light is so important, why wouldn't you want a standard zoom that does 2.8? doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but YMMV.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have the Nikon 10-24mm f3.5-4.5, and while I do like the focal range a lot, <strong>the quality in the corners isn't what it could be</strong> (Tokina 12-24mm f4 is sharper in the corners than this lens, as is the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6).</p>

<p>the 10-24. It's <strong>optically a tad above the Nikon 12-24, especially in the corners</strong>, and the variable aperture isn't a big deal. Plus, it is the widest of the bunch.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>dieter, are you sure? everything i've heard about the 10-24 concurs with dave's findings. there was a lot of buzz around this lens when it first came out, but it cooled down considerably as apparently the sigma is better at 10mm. i wouldn't be surprised to learn that the tokina 12-24 has better corners here too. from what i read, nikon kind of cheaped out on the 10-24's optical formula. dont think that matters too much for most typical applications for this lens, i.e. stopped down. but if you're attempting to shoot wide open, it could be a factor.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Eric, I have no experience with the 3rd-party options, but both the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX and 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX are a little weak on the wide end, especially in the corners. The 24mm end is much better.</p>

<p>That is why I think for wide angles, FX has a clear advantage. That is also why I prefer the 10-24 over the 12-24 since it is easier to avoid the extreme wide end of the 10-24.</p>

<p>hmm, with the tokina 12-24, it's more the distortion at 12mm than lack of corner performance you have to watch out for. there's no distortion at 15mm, and the lens is almost flawless from 18-24mm. nevertheless, i think the whole idea of getting an ultra wide-angle zoom to shoot people at 2.8 is not necessarily sound, unless you're talking about the 14-24 on FX.</p>

<p>Eric, I had this thread in mind when I wrote the above: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TUnj<br>

Looking at photozone, the comparison becomes much more complicated and the hierarchy changes depending on the focal length and the aperture used. Overall the trend I described previously seems to hold but it is also easy to see that at certain apertures and focal lengths, the trends can be different. Also, tests usually only use one lens and hence can't take sample variation into account - which may or may not be significant. Not to mention that visual perception of real world photos can lead one to draw different conclusions than the ones glimpses from the shooting of test charts.<br>

Nikon 12-24: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/229-nikkor-af-s-12-24mm-f4g-if-ed-dx-lab-test-report--review?start=1<br>

Tokina 12-24: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/273-tokina-af-12-24mm-f4-at-x-pro-dx-nikon-lens-test-report--review?start=1<br>

Nikon 10-24: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/443-nikkor_1024_3545?start=1<br>

Sigma 10-20/3.5: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon?start=1</p>

<p>Just for kicks, compare those performances with the 14-24 on DX - which is much more even across the frame.<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review?start=1<br>

and which maintains that performance on FX<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1</p>

<p>On a side note - this reminds me again that all lens tests and comparisons need to be taken with a grain of salt. And how many users have the option and the time to do their own comparisons before they settle on the one to purchase? </p>

 

<p>I haven't tried any of this objectives but, after looking at photozone tests, I don't understand why people say that tokina 12-24mm f/4 is as good as the Nikon 12-24mm f/4.</p>

<p>Tests seem to show that Nikon has less distortion in the wide end, less vignetting in the wide end, better resolution overall (only Tokina is slightly better at 12mm f/4 in the corners) and much less chromatic aberration.</p>