Nikon vs. Tokina 12-24mm/f4 DX

[daniel_bliss]

The Nikon's 12mm setting is significantly wider than the Tokina's. If Nikon is a true 12,

think Tokina as somewhere close to a 13.5.

 

The Nikon's color balance is neutral, the Tokina a little yellow or tobacco-y. (But if you

have other Tokina lenses, it is consistent with those lenses).

 

Vignetting on the Tokina at wider apertures starts in even towards the long end and only

gets worse towards the wide end-- this was the single most problematic feature for me.

The Nikon is remarkably free of vignetting.

 

Nikon is slightly soft in the corners at 12, but within the Tokina's true range of 13.5-24,

the Nikon equals or beats the Tokina for sharpness -- in part because I think the Nikon is

better corrected for chromatic aberration.

 

Tokina is remarkably free of linear distortion across the range to the point you simply

don't have to think about it, while Nikon has slight barrel distortion in the corners at

12mm-14mm.

 

AF-S is kind of handy from an override point of view on a wide-angle lens, especially if

you are slow at navigating the focus points. The Tokina's focus clutch mechanism isn't

quite fast enough for my taste.

 

If you primarily manually focus, the Tokina handles better because the focus ring is in the

correct position and of the correct size, rather than a little dinky thing inside the zoom

ring as with the Nikon.

 

I settled on the Nikon after trying both.

[frank_skomial]

NIkon is not better than Tokina, as some people say here. They have to say so since they feel need to justify spending extra $500;

 

Read this:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IM7r&unified_p=1

[glenn_losack]

Am i to assume that the tokina will work with the D300 Nikon

without problem

[ShunCheung]

Glenn, I haven't personally tried the Tokina 12-24 on a D300, but otherwise we have already answered your question in your other thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Nf0d

[albinonflickr]

A quick response from me, someone who chose (sp.?) the Nikkor over the Tokina.

 

A friend of me bought the Tokina shortly before, was happy with the results and showed good images. My most important gripe was with chromatic aberrations at high-contrast edges towards the sides/corners of the images.

 

I had bad experience with CA using the older (and much loved) 24/2.8 and 20/3.5 on D200, and wanted to avoid the problem as much as possible. I am now happy to say the the 12-24 Nikkor (at least my sample) does perform very well in this respect. Better then the oldies, and better then the Tokina.

 

YMMV..

[roy_gumpel]

I just Sold my tokina because I thought that the sharpness was unacceptable. Maybe I just had a lousy one. looking at the Fortier images above comparing the Tokina and Nikon, to me the tokina looks sharper, except maybe in the full car images(1st two). a toss up there to me. I think the only lens I have used on my d200 that gives sharp enough images is an old nikon 55 macro 2.8. to me it sems like the only one that when I look at the images closeup on the lcd, the lines are sharp, like when I used to look at slide film on a lightbox with a loupe. Are you supposed to be able to trust the lcd screen for judging sharpness?? I have alot to learn about digital! I feel like I get sharper images from my G9. Shouldn't I be able to produce images that are very sharp.. like, count eyelashes and stuff? I am not a technical nerd and love my lensbaby, but what can I expect out of a wide angle lens on a d200? Should I be able to get a sharp image with the Tamron 18-250 anywhere in the zoom range? Or, like in the old days where I would Never have used any zoom lenses, am I just expecting too much from a zoom lens? thanks

[Peter_in_PA]

Roy,

 

NO. The LCD is not the way to judge sharpness of an image. In fact, looking on-screen on

a computer isn't always the way either, although it is effective. Looking at final ouput,

whatever that is, is the best way.

 

And there's a fine line (pun intended) between a sharp picture and an over-sharpened and

over-contrasty image, which, imho, is what you get with a lot of P&S cameras if you're not

careful. And comparing the 18-250 to a 55mm 2.8 micro? YES the micro will be sharper,

always... at 55mm... but the 18-250 has better results at 18mm, 24mm, 35mm, 80mm,

135mm... you get the picture.