Nikkor 12- 24 o Tokina 12-24 atx pro

[bokeh man1]

Can anyone advise me as to the difference in quality of these 2 lenses? Is the

higher price of the Nikon really justified?

[ShunCheung]

This topic has been discussed a few times and there are different opinioins. IMO, it boils down to (1) whether you are willing to spend an extra $400 or so for the Nikon brand name and (2) you need AF-S on this lens.

 

Personally, I have the Nikon version, which I bought before the Tokina was released, but I would have bought the Nikon version anyway. Your mileage may vary.

[eric friedemann]

My store has been selling both and I think you'd be pleased with the optical and build quality of both lenses. I bought the Nikkor, as I'm spolied by the AF-S focus on the lens (Tokina doesn't put focus motors in any of its Nikon mount lenses).<div></div>

[ecarter]

<P>I've got the Tokina version of this lens - if you don't want to spend the premium for Nikon and don't need AF-S focus then the Tokina is a good performer in its own right. Either lens is a strong contender though.

 

<P>Some people love Ken Rockwell, some don't - but he does do an interesting comparison between Nikon mount ultrawide lenses including both the Tokina and the Nikkor <A HREF="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm">here</A>. This is a useful comparison IMO, at least in that it gives side-by-side examples of photos taken with all the lenses so you can compare bokeh, sharpness, color rendition, distortion, etc on each lens using similar images.

 

<P>My own view is that the Nikkor wasn't worth the extra money for this kind of lens, but your mileage may vary.

 

<P><CENTER><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4708330-lg.jpg"><BR><I>Big Sky Sunset - Nikon D70 w/ Tokina 12-24/4 Tokina AT-X124 Pro DX</I></CENTER>

[HuskyMason1]

re-sale value is another factor...Nikon lenses hold value better than after-market lenses.

[eric friedemann]

"®e-sale value is another factor...Nikon lenses hold value better than after-market lenses."

 

 

If Nikon starts making full-frame-sensor cameras, as has been predicted, the resale value of either DX lens will be for s&!#.

[ecarter]

Unless you've heard something new about it, I wouldn't hold my breath on a Nikon full frame dSLR just yet. I admit to not having paid total attention to every move Nikon's made, but I don't see any hint of them doing that anytime soon.

[photo5]

I bought the Tokina and I love it. It's a well built solid lens with excellent optics. AF-S isn't a big deal for me, this lens focuses fast on my D70s. Will focus faster on a D200. Some say this lens is even built better than the Nikon which costs twice as much. If money is no object, by all means, get the Nikon. But for me, $500 is a lot of money so it was a no brainer.

 

Dave<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

"If Nikon starts making full-frame-sensor cameras, as has been predicted, the resale value of either DX lens will be for s&!#."

 

I cannot disagree more with that statement.

 

Actually I am quite sure that Nikon will have a FF DSLR within a year or two, but regardless of whether it is Canon, Nikon or some other brand, the DSLR market will continue to be dominated by small-sensor ones and therefore there will be a huge market for DX, EF-S type lenses. In case you are a high-end shooter and decide to use FF exclusively some day, it will be very easy to sell your DX lenses, especially if it is something popular such as a 12-24. I also have a 10.5mm fisheye, and selling that may be a bit harder since it is a highly specialized lens. You will lose some money just like selling any lens used, but value for DX lenses won't go down the drain.

 

The fact that Canon has recently added an expensive 17-55 EF-S IS after the 5D is very telling.

 

Thom Hogan explains that better than I can: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=19397625

[eric friedemann]

Shun, if Nikon rolls out a FF DSLR, there are going to be a whole bunch of 12-24mm DX lenses on the market and mine will be the first. This would most certainly negatively impact the resale value of the lens, as the resale value of the 28-70mm AF-S lens was negatively impacted by the introduction of the 17-55mm DX lens.

 

 

Canon has reiterated its commitment to APS-C DSRLs by continuing to bring out new, professional EF-S lenses. Nikon has only two professional DX lenses, three if you want to count the fisheye.

[leslie_cheung]

FWIW there are VERY FEW secondhand tokina out there. I looked for 6 months and the

cheapest one was $430 and I looked long and hard. As for a nikon FF, I'm will Eric. the

tokina will go even though it is an excellent lens. F4 is just too slow...

[ShunCheung]

Eric, when Nikon finally rolls out a FF DSLR, I think the first complaint will be that it is too expensive. (1) There may be a few high-end users who will buy a primary and a backup FF DSLR; those may want to sell their 12-24. (2) Some people will use both formats (i.e. 1 FF with DX backup and accept the inconvenience of owning multiple formats) but (3) most will simply stay with DX type sensors because of cost.

 

IMO there are very few Nikon users in category (1) at this point. Most of those who must use FF DSLRs (for whatever reason) and can afford it have already switched to Canon. It will be very difficult for Nikon to get those customers back.

 

There may be a few more used 12-24 on the market during that transition. Once those are absorbed, prices for used DX lenses will be no different from other used lenses.

[eric friedemann]

Shun, since neither of us is wont to argue hypotheticals, I'll simply note that the current *bay completed listing price for like-new 12-24mm DX Nikkors is averaging $781. If Nikon introduces a FF DSLR, we'll revisit this topic six months after the cameras reach stores and we'll see whether that price has noticeably decreased.

[ShunCheung]

My rule of thumb for used Nikkor lenses in excellent conditioin and still in production is 80% of its new value. The 12-24mm/f4 DX is currently $920 at B&H. 80% of that is $736. If your $781 value is correct (which I won't verify), that means used 12-24 is sold for 85% of its new value, which is higher than my rule of thumb value.

 

It will indeed be interesting to check for that percentage 6 months and then again 12 months after this hyphothetical Nikon FF DSLR is available.

 

It'll also be interesting to see whether Eric will indeed become a Category (1) photographer mentioned above. For me, I'll continue to use my 3 DX lenses for years to come. At this point I don't know whether I'll be in Category 2 or 3; it will all depend on the price vs. performance on any future FF Nikon DSLRs. They are vaporware right now.

[ky2]

Shun, you forgot to divide your figures by the 1.5x crop factor ;)

 

I don't care much about resale value. Cameras and lenses are a lousy investment anyway, who cares if they hold their value. Their value is if they're being used. If you want to make money, invest in Google.

[eric friedemann]

1. Shun, there are also very few like-new 12-24mm Nikkor lenses selling on *bay right now, which is keeping the price up. If we see a Nikon FF body, my guess is that the number of like used lenses will climb and the value will fall.

 

 

2. If Nikon introduces a FF body that will perform well with my 28mm f/1.4, I'll buy one.

 

 

3. Whether your DX lenses will be useable years down the line will depend on the longevity of the sensor on, say, your D2x or whether Nikon continues to make DX-sensored cameras. As we've discussed, if Nikon plans to make professional or even prosumer DX DSLRs for years to come, its passing strange that Nikon hasn't introduced more professional-quality DX lenses.

[fast_primes]

Some additional points:<br>

<ul>

<li>The Tokina 12-24 zoom was co-designed with Pentax. The Pentax 12-24 is optically the same. Tokina will not be making a version for the Pentax K-mount, obviously.<br><br>

<li>Per Ken Rockwell (<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm"><i>link</i></a>), the Nikon 12-24 AF-S DX zoom <i>can</i> be used on film/FF cameras from 16mm to 18mm and up, with no serious vignetting--depending on if and what kind/thickness of filter is used! I would guess/hope that this applies to similar lens designs like the Tokina 12-24 as well.<br><br>

<li>From the above Ken Rockwell review, there is a link to the designer <a href="http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/05/index.htm"><i>Haruo Sato's comments</i></a>.

[bwcombs]

I used the Nikon version on a couple of projects, renting the lens for use each time. After

that I realized that owning one would be a better idea. So I purchased the Tokina from a

dealer here, with the understanding that I could exchange it for the Nikon if I wanted. (Plus

the additional $400 or so.)

 

I was able to shoot both, compare side by side and come to a conclusion based on my

needs. The tests I did were not very scientific, but did convince me that the Tokina works

very well for my needs. I don't have the need for fast focus in the AF-S, as most of my

shooting with this lens is of static subjects (interiors, landscapes, etc.)

 

I posted results of these images on my website. These were posted for friends who were

considering these two items as well. You are welcome to review them yourselves. It may

or may not be helpful to you.

 

It can be found at this link:

 

http://www.brentcombsdesign.com/tokina.html

 

I have been very pleased with the Tokina.

[maxz]

I intended to buy the Nikon for a very long time and even saved up money for it. In the meanwhile a friend bought the Tokina which i checked out and it impressed on me. Also the Swedish photography magazine FOTO tested these two (in a test of ten wide angle zooms and wide to normal zooms) in the November issue last year together with MTF, vignetting and distorsion at three different focal lengths for these two. The Tokina got the only "award" ("Prisv䲤" =~ "Good value for the money") in the test (the other "award" they give in tests is "Toppklass" =~ "Top grade").

 

The Tokina showed less distorsion, performed slightly better in the MTF-tests and in a test image showed a bit more CA. Not much, they are very similar performance wise according to that test. Feeling my friends Tokina i my hand I had a hard time deciding.

 

AF-S was a big deal for me a long time, until I realised that the clutch mechanism of the Tokina is really neat. Of course, I cannot just grab and twist like on the Nikon, I have to grab, pull back and twist. In the end I bought the cheaper Tokina and used the rest of the money for other fun photography stuff.

 

If you have the opportunity, check them both out. They are both fine lenses. Only you know what you want, need and how thick your wallet is.

[maxz]

Oops! Sorry, the Tokina showed *less* CA than the Nikon in their test.

 

That is what happens if you type late at night...

[scribble.wymer]

The Tokina was slower, but at wide angle, they are both near instant anyways, so that doesnt really matter, just the noise levels, as the tokinais a bit louder. However, it was sharper by a wide margin on the samples i tried, so i went tokina and neveer looked back. The built is phenominal.

 

And on the topic of FF nikon, nikon and fuji have both put ALL research into the DX sensor, there will never be a FF Nikon or Fuji. Fuji has stated already that FF sensors are a fad for the transition, and dont hold their value.