mfpow Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Im looking to buy a 12-24mm f4 for my D200. Everyone seems to agree that Nikons 12-24mm f4 is a great lens, but at a cost of neary $1000, how much better is it than the Tokina 12-24mm f4 at about half the price. any thoughts or insights on the comparison of these two lenses would be appreciated. thanks.Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_zellner1 Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Matthew: Both Popular Photography Magazine and the web site: www.nikonians.org offer comparison tests between Nikon, Tokina, Tamron and Sigma ultra wide angle zoom lenses for dslr cameras. Please take a look at both tests. They are worthwhile reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 You also might want to do a search on this board. This topic has been discussed numerous times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tech-pan Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 A friend of mine has a Canon 20D with the Tokina 12-24/4 and gets fantastic images. I played around with it and it seems to be very well made. Looking at her images I cannot see that the Nikon would be any better. Personally I would get the Tokina if it was my money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_altmann Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Get the Tokina. I have one and I love it. Additionally Tokina seems to have a better QC than e.g. SIGMA where it seems to be pure luck whether you get an orange or a lemon (in my definition, if a lemon is something bad, some other fruit must be good, I chose the orange). However if you also want to do 35 mm or FF photography, consider the Sigma 12-24 which unlike both the Nikon and the Tokina (and contenders) is desinged for FF. Keep in mind that no lens is optimal at the limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I wanted to get a lens that rhymed with orange, but couldn't find one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfpow Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 im assuming FF is "full frame", yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfpow Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 "However if you also want to do 35 mm or FF photography, consider the Sigma 12-24 which unlike both the Nikon and the Tokina (and contenders) is desinged for FF. Keep in mind that no lens is optimal at the limits." could someone explain how the sigma is designed for 35mm of FF, while the others are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 the sigma is heavier, slower, and the front element is so large and bulbous that it can't use front filters. nonetheless it's a significant achievement in optics. Composing a good photo at 12mm full-frame, well that's another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 The Sigma 12-24mm is not a DX type lens. In other words, it can cover the entire 35mm film area: 24x36mm. However, the Sigma 12-24 is not a constant f4 in its zoom range and has a large, convex front element; it also has no filter threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_fortier Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I compared a Tokina & Nikkor 12-24, image results is a toss. See for yourself, but slight focus or other variables will make one edge the other, it's very close. http://photos.imageevent.com/premierevue/posting/NIK%2014%20F.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/premierevue/posting/TOK%2014%20F.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/premierevue/posting/NIK%2014%20R.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/premierevue/posting/TOK%2014%20R.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/premierevue/posting/NIK%2014%20L.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/premierevue/posting/TOK%2014%20L.jpg What is not close, is the ergonomics; the Tokina is WAY better big zoom & focus rings, the Nikkors are hidden in the lens, I imagine the frustration on someone shooting with gloves in colder climate. Also the built quality of the 12-24 Tokina is amazing for the price. regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Tokina 12-24 is not an AF-S lens, while Nikkor is. However, the AF focus of Tokina 12-24 is very fast, so I do not think anyone would even notice focusing speed difference between Nikkor 12-24 and the Tokina. Short focal length lenses do not need much movement to focus, and the Tokina AF is fast for all types of shooting, including action. Comparing to Sigma lens mentioned, Sigma is slower with the F-STop at max tele position, and that affects focusing in low light, as well as low light photography. There were reports of Sigma compatibility problems with Nikon DSLR dodies, I believe that was solved already ?, someone may need to verify this. For the US$500 Tokina 12-24/4 AF is as good as it can get, for the time being. Paying $1000 for Nikkor will give you personal satisfaction, and perhaps nothing else beyond that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Frank if you look at the conclusion in the nikonians review the nikkor is the winner if money is not concerned. Also many (like me) got used to override the AF mechanism - a nice feature of the HSM design. I agree with all those who conclude that the price difference will be the key issue considering that the differences are small. I like my Nikkor a lot. If the Tokina would have been out at the time I got my zoom I might have taken it under condition of testing first - I hate to spend less for a lemon. A comment on the quality control: I do have no experience with Tokina but the Sigma here in Germany seem to do a good job and what I hear from the US they seemed to settle all compatibility issues to satisfaction. Still you have a high chance to need the service for wide angle zooms because quality control cost a lot and may explain part of the lower prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_brewton Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 No contest when you consider price. IMO, the Tokina is a tad better at color rendition. Yes, you guessed it, I have the Tokina. BTW, the guy everyone loves to hate (obviously made a big impression if I can't remember his name) who has the website dedicated to Nikon did a curvature corrections chart for the superwide zooms. The Tokina was the only one which could be corrected at all apertures. I find that WO, most of the time I need no PS lens correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_brewton Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I meant at 12mm it usually needs no correction. I've never shot it at 12mm and F4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_du_bois Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Get the Tokina, it's 1/2 the price and every bit as good of a lens. It is the only non-Nikon lens I own! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shineofleo Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Agree, Tokina 12-24/F4 is the half price of Nikon one and, it is absolutely NOT half performance of Nikon. Certainly Nikon one is better, but from the result from those magizine and user reviews, perhaps Nikon is not 'far better' than Tokina. Of course, if you are rich enough to afford Nikon, go and get it, otherwise choose Tokina and you will not regret. The only obvious problem of Tokina one is the flare problem i think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradfarlow Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 The Tokina is a great lens. The distortion is generally acceptable and more easy to correct than the Nikon or the Sigma. At 24mm the Tokina is virtually free from distortion and sharp as a tack. You can't go wrong with it, especially for 1/2 the price! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfpow Posted September 29, 2006 Author Share Posted September 29, 2006 thanks everyone. looks like the pNet galllery is in favor of the tokina. All your reasons sound good enough to me. im sold. last thing, the tokina can fully function on my f100 as well, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradfarlow Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 The Tokina and the Nikon for that mater, are not full frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 The Nikkor 12-24mm/f4 AF-S G can cover the full 35mm film frame (e.g. in the F100 SLR) from about 18mm to 24mm. In that sense it is compatible with the F100. When you zoom below 18mm, you'll gradually get more and more vignetting. Since it is a G lens, you need a body with a sub-command dial (or one with that functionality multiplexed, e.g. the D50) to control the aperture. Someone with the Tokina can fill in the equivalent details. BTW, you can get the Nikon version for below $900, so the Tokina is not quite half the price, but it is close: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=449241&is=USA&addedTroughType=search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnulfo_rosas1 Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Sort of rip off to pay ca $900 for a slow f4 zoom. I have compared the Tokina and Nikon side by side and see no $400-450 difference at all. I love Nikon but I am not a blind enough to tell the Nikon 12-24 is twice good the Tokina. BTW the Tokina is the only 3rd party lens out of 15 Nikons I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john in cincinnati Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 I too considered the Tokina 12-24 f/4, and I think between the Nikon and the Tokina, it's a "no brainer" due to the cost. I don't think the extra $450 for the Nikon is worth it. Also, don't count out the Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6. Between the Sigma and the Tokina, I liked liked the extra 2mm on the wide end, and also the HSM focusing motor. Tokina has a screw drive. Of course you have the extra stop advantage with the Tokina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_martin9 Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 I own the Sigma 10-20 and it is a beautifull lens. The Sigma is razor sharp, crsytal clear and the color rendition to my D200 is amazing. I like having the 10mm availability and find it very useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 Loved my Tokina 12-24 on my Rebel XT. Looking forward to using my Tokina 12-24 Nikon mount next week in the western Caribbean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now