Jump to content

12-24mm f/4


Recommended Posts

Most folks who have objectively reviewed these particular two say the Nikkor has better resistance to flare and chromatic aberration.


In my casual test, tho', the Tokina had very good flare resistance and may be adequate for many people. The Tokina is also surprisingly well conrolled against chromatic aberration.


It's a tough call. Judging from the hi rez sample photos I've seen the Nikkor produces somewhat better photos. The Tokina produces very good photos, feels a bit more sturdily made than the Nikkor and is a relative bargain.


There are several previous discussions of these lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Tokina. It's probly one of the sharpest Wide-angles I've ever used. Built is very robust. Flare is no problem. Ghosting is no problem. I shoot into the Sun most the time for sunsets/sunrises at f/22.



Here's some samples:


<a href="http://www.thedynamiclight.com/GalleriesPage/tahoe2.htm">Sample 1</a>


<a href="http://www.thedynamiclight.com/GalleriesPage/tahoe3.htm">Sample 2</a>


The one on the right.


<a href="http://www.thedynamiclight.com/GalleriesPage/tahoe3.htm">Sample 3</a>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 12-24 as previously said takes "somewhat better photos" than the Tokina. This is true.

If you are out for performance rather than price there is no choice to make. Get the Nikon.

It's a great lens although I would have paid more to get an f2.8!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks a million, guys. i'm also leaning towards the tokina so my funds for the future D200 won't get hurt so much.


my work brings me to monterey and carmel area so i'd like to try something wider than my 17-55mm. to be honest, on occassions, i find the kit 18-70mm more resistant to flare than the 17-55mm. of course the latter is still best for sundown and sunsets --- from the limited number of lenses that i have.


nice shot dan. good timimg on the reds of the traffic lights. nice to think that the red reflection/flare on the upper right hand corner came from the traffic light; and the blue streak/flare on the lower left from the sun........wonderful timing and comp. fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used the Nikon 12-24 on a couple of interior project shoots. Using speedlites and

available tungsten lighting, I experienced some flare on a couple of shots (from the

tungsten sources).


I had the chance to duplicate the shoot again with a Tokina 12-24. The flare was evident

in this sample as well. I was not really looking for comparisons of flare, but sharpness,

distortion and CA.


This shoot was not very scientific, but it allowed me to decide that the Tokina is a very

viable alternative to the Nikon lens. Don't get me wrong, the Nikon should and would be

my first choice, but the value of the Tokina (and the ability to purchase some other gear as

well) made my decision for me.


In a perfect world, I would use only Nikon lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramon, i own some of nikon's best: 10.5 fisheye, 17-35, 50 1.4, 105 micro 2.8 and the

70-200 VR. the Tokina is the only 3rd party lens i have and prob the last. i love the

Nikkors but in this one case, the Tokina made a lot of sense. actually, it and the micro are

most likely to be on my camera at any given time.


i've spent a lot since i started in June '05 (D70) and got the D200 last month. add in those

lenses above (ouch! but thank heaven for tax refunds...) and that's serious cash. but i did a

ton of research on everything before i bought them and did some test shots with both 12

-24's. the Nikkor had slightly better contrast and yielded a bit more brightness. but i'm

talking a personal rating of 95 to 93 or so. minimal. the Tokina is built as good as the

Nikkor and its sharpness is on par too. it even has been tested to have less barrell

distortion at the wide end (1.22% to 1.31%) and the same close focusing distance of 11.5

inches. as far as flare goes, i've had few problems and that's been covered well enough



with today's use of PS and such we're talking very little difference in performance and build

for just over half the price. is the Nikkor worth the difference? maybe if it were $675 like

Canon's entry. i saved over $400 and put it towards the 70-200 and have no regrets. if

Nikon makes a 12mm prime DX at 2.8 - i'll be first in line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is something that you have already dismissed, but I recently bought a Sigma

10-20 for my D2X and the results are truly superb, with excellent sharpness and contrast.

It is also really well made, solid and professional feeling. I thought it was more useful for

me than a 12-24 as I already own the 17-55 and wanted something really wide (which this

is!). Also it was a great price (about 325 GDP as opposed to 750 for the nikon 12-24).





Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I love my Tokina, but I do have problem with flare/ghost on some of the shot I have taken.


I was just fooling around with my camera when this came out:




this was taken few second later with my hands covering the light source.




I don't know if it is only my lens or the fact that I live in New Zealand (stronger light?), but I do seem to have to throw away a few pics everytime I go out because of ghosting problem.


What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...