Thoughts on Tokina 12-24 vs. Nikon 12-24 (w/pix)

[peter_martucci]

Hi all,

 

Well, without getting too much into it, I decided to stick with Nikon and buy some nice

lenses as I'm pretty sure it's the d2x for me in the next year or so (rather than switch to

Canon as I was thinking for a minute). Im using a d70 for

now, and thought it would be a smart idea not to buy "decent" lenses any longer rather

than

good fast Nikkor optics with the d2x in the pipeline. So anyway, I really like the 17-35 (on

film), and even though the

Nikon 12-24 seems quite expensive for an f4, it's the only comparable focal length

available. That is, until I read reviews about the Tokina 12-24. Every review seems to put

the lens pretty equal to the Nikkor. Which I thought sounded great (500 bucks less). So

with this lens planned as my first purchase to replace a sigma 15-30 (a nikkor 50 1.8

already in the bag) and an 80-200 f2.8

planned after the 12-24, I went the store today to pick up my new Tokina 12-24 (the one I

bought last

week had unbelievable CA and was soft in one corner---defective).

 

In short, the Nikon blew the tokina away at wider aperatures. It was almost mind-

boggling as every bit of literature seems to put these lenses equal. And I tried 3 different

Tokia 12-24's so I definitely gave it a "dud" allowance.

 

At f11, they were pretty similar. Well, anyway, I only have a couple pictures because the

rest I left on the computer at the photo store...but they were nice enough to let me take

them outside quickly to shoot them side by side. I have photos from the interiro of the

store, but they were shot handheld at 1/30th, so probably not good examples. The

salesman was encouraging me to

just get the tokina, as he'd heard the same rumours I had. After he saw the photos

though...he agreed that he nikon was superior.

 

The attached images were both shot with the d70, f4, I focused on the

sign (manually) and shutter speed was 1/4000 sec. The levels aren't very good, but I

didn't want to alter the images at all for comparison.

 

To be honest I really wanted the Tokina. A LOT cheaper.

 

images attached......<div></div>

[peter_martucci]

and tokina....<div></div>

[peter_martucci]

sign post....<div></div>

[peter_martucci]

and...<div></div>

[peter_martucci]

and towards the edge of frame...nikon<div></div>

[peter_martucci]

and tokina again...<div></div>

[peter_martucci]

please keep in mind this is just my experience...NOT SCIENTIFIC in any way....but thought

I'd share.....in case you didn't guess I bought the Nikon (used).

[erickpro]

Any images at F8 ?

[ilkka_nissila]

It seems that the Tokina has a lot of barrel distortion too. Yuck.

[peter_martucci]

I should add that it seems as though I was slighly closer in the shot I took with the Tokina

as I had to run back into the store to switch lenses (notice the clouds moved a bit as well).

 

sorry i don't have any at f8, but I do have some from inside the store....at f4 and f11.

 

I think the Tokina is a nice lens...I was actually pretty impressed with its build quality and

overall performance. But when you really get down on your hands and knees and start

picking apart the details..the NIkon excels and shows it's truly a pro lens (although I'm not

happy about paying that much for an f4).

[ivan_verschoote1]

One thing is for sure Peter: with your future D2X the optical differences will only be bigger.

[walterh]

"it's the only comparable focal length available. That is, until I read reviews about the Tokina 12-24"

 

You missed the Sigma 12-24

[steve_muntz]

Tamron has a new one too, 11-18 or something like that. Think I'll stick with the Nikon, and thanks for posting this. I've also read the reviews and the half-price Tokina seemed too good to be true. I've used other Tokinas and been impressed, but that's not encouraging to hear of your experiences.

 

I also notice that the Nikon looks a little wider at 12mm. Both images say they were shot at 12mm, but sometimes zooms aren't quite the focal lengths advertised.

[andy a.]

I did the same test at my camera store and came to the opposite conclusions. Strange...

 

The barrel distortion is even stranger. I had both lenses with me when outside. I planted my feet and did shots with each at exactly the same perspective. One was of a grid type target (window with panes filling frame), and you can clearly see that the barrel distortion is much worse on the nikkor vs. tokina.

 

Anyway, I went away with the tokina, but both seemed pretty solid in my tests.

 

Re: your post, did the sun change from one shot to the next? It looks like the flare might be slightly different in the two. I'm also assuming exposures were the same and shutter was sufficiently fast...

[walterh]

"I did the same test at my camera store and came to the opposite conclusions. Strange..."

 

Not strange at all. There is considerable sample variation in these complex very wide zooms. I know three people in a local photo club who bought the sigma 12-24 lens with canon mount. The price was much lower than anything similar about a year ago. All three lenses went back to sigma (Germany)because of misalignment problems noticed after a few hundred shots were taken and serious test were performed. All three came back in perfect working order and the owners are very satisfied with the lens. I was about to get the Sigms lens instead of the Nikon 12-24mm because of the full film coverage at the wide end of the Sigma. When ready to buy it i tested both lenses in the store and found one little problem I had not expected - slight underexposure with the Sigma. (see this old thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AG59 ) . Optically the Sigma was a little better at the wide end and the Nikkor a little better at the long end (the samples I tested at least).

I personally would always test the individual lens (like this one) before i buy it. I think the risk of getting a lemon is much lower for Nikon or Canon lenses than for third party - but this is just my personal feeling.

 

Another thing: While the 12-24mm Nikkor is "as good" as the 24mmAFD F2.8 Nikkor my AIS 24mm F2.8 is clearly better than both , the 24mmAFD prime and the 12-24mm Nikkor zoom. One reason e.g. for landscapes to keep the "old" lens.

[peter_martucci]

hi andy...yes the clouds did move a bit as it took me about 5 minutes to go back into the

store and switch the lens. I also think i may have been a little bit closer with the Tokina,

but the NIkon was definitely a little bit wider at 12mm. However, I was VERY careful to

make sure the focus was on the signpost, so the little bit of distance should not matter,

especially with a lens that wide....

 

This particular Tokina in the test shots was better than the one I declined last week (i had

ordered it and the CA was just terrible). I am in no way bashing the Tokina...for 500

dollars, i was quite impressed. But the corner softness at wider aperatures is not really a

step up from my sigma..which was the whole point of a lens upgrade.

 

in repsonse to not mentioning the Sigma 12-24: a BIIIIGGGGGG drawback of the sigma is

the inability to mount filters. This is one of the big reasons I've decided to sell my 15-30

sooner rather than later (rear gelatin is not my thing).

[wen_lin]

I have tried various Sigma, tokina and Tamron lenses. While they are good value for money, I never seem to be happy with any of them, especially wide angle lenses. They never seem to be as sharp as Nikkors. I am not too fuss about build quality, as long as they can give me the sharpness I crave at a price that I can afford. I have the luxury of being able to try lotsa lenses. At the end of the day, the conclusion is always, save money and get a nikkor.

 

Tamron macro lenses are highly recommended.

 

Alternatively, just print 6x4 inches. everything looks good.

[michael_ferron1]

For someone who needs to shoot at f4 with the best quality possible then the Nikon's the best choice. Considering I bought my Tokina 12-24 for landscape/scenic work and use it most often tripod mounted at F11/F16 it was a no brainer for me to save the $500 and get a lens that performs as good as the Nikon at those F stops.

 

Mike

[bruce_f]

Peter,

As a Nikon sales rep once told me, on any given day, a lens made by a secondary optics

company, such as Tokina, might be as good as a Nikkor. The difference is, the Nikkor will

always be of a consistent high quality from lens to lens. The Tokina quality will vary from

lens to lens of the same model, often dramatically. So, if you have the time to look at a

few dozen 12-24 Tokina lenses, you might find the equal to the 12-24 Nikkor.

[fourfa]

A Nikon sales rep told you that? must be true then

[anthony asael]

I bought a Tokina 12-24 for my Nikon D200 last year, and I am very disappointed by the results. The pictures are not sharp, colors are very dump?. And worse of all , the metering is lacking precision. In all contrasted situations (most of the time in the case of wide angle pictures), it got lost. I need to use exposure compensation of +1,3 or +1,7?. Or -1,3 for the desired effect. Strange enough compensation is less (+,7 or -,3)with my D70 ??? I cannot understand why ?

My D200 does that only with that lens? so I don?t think it has to do with the camera?. Maybe the lens is defective ? I tried to write to Tokina, but never got an answer ;-((

Any suggestion or help ??? Anyone experienced something similar ?

 

Thx for your advices !

 

Anthony

[wingedlizard]

Anthony,

 

Any word yet on the underexposure? I just got the Tokina today, and during some test shots during my lunch break I noticed significant underexposure, too. It is upwards of 1 EV. I had not encountered this in any other review I read prior to purchasing this lens.

[daniel_jolly]

My sincerest gratitude for the existence of this thread. I'm not the richest guy in the world so the Tokina, at half the price, was tempting. Nikon's 12-24 is almost a thousand dollars, which at f4 is crazy.

 

But Nikon it is.

 

PS - I read enough negative reviews of the Sigma on amazon to eliminate it outright from the potential shopping list!