Tokina 12-24s are expensive - alternatives for DX? Primes okay

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>So I've decided that I should have a proper wide-angle lens. For DX, even 24mm is not wide enough. Tokina 12-24s are a bit pricey, even second-hand. I'll get one if I have to as their reputation is excellent. But what are my alternatives?</p>

<p>Primes are okay - I may be happy with just a 16mm or 14mm. At least I get the benefit or either a lower price, wider aperture or both.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>Karim,</p>

<p>The Nikkor 14mm prime is super expensive, rarer than the zooms and has a similar degree of distortion as the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 - I'd say it was far from a bargain despite it's larger f/2.8 aperture. Many swear by the Nikkor 18mm lens but this really is barely a wide angle on DX and again not cheap. The 20mm AF-D is a great lens but agin still not particularly wide on a DX body.</p>

<p>Which body are you shoting with? Can you use Ai and AiS lenses on your body? </p>

<p>I'd save up and buy a Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 for DX - I loved mine over three DX camera bodies D70, D200 and D300.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>If the Tokina at $500 is expensive then most other wide angles are worse. The Nikon 24 f2.8 is a little cheaper at $235. The Nikon 20 f2.8 is about the same as the Tokina zoom. The Nikon 14 mm f2.8 is $1,400. The Nikon 14 to 24 zoom is around $1,300 to 1,400. As a whole super wide angle and long telephoto lenses are more expensive.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>The Sigma 10-20 is probably your best bet. The last time I checked, there was a rebate on it: lowering its price down to $420ish.</p>

[dan park]

<p>They are pricey because they are an excellent lens. You get what you pay for.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>My 12/24 Nikkor is a very nice lens on DX. I have tried Sigma 10/24 ans was not pleased.</p>

<p> </p>

[paul_newman4]

<p>I have heard good things about the Tokina 11-16 2.8</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Look in the used market. With many photographers getting FX cameras, there are quite a few wide angle DX lenses coming onto the market. Prices are quite good.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I looked at everything myself and finally decided the Tokina 12-24 was the best lens out there for $500.00 (give or take a bit). You could shave some money off with a used model or if you are willing to limit yourself to 18mm using such lenses as the 18-55mm. But I wanted wider then that and I wanted a lens that would perform very well. The 77mm filter size for me was a bonus because I have other glass with that size..If you purchase the Tokina the Nikon circ polarizer II will not vignett and it will still accept your lens cap. (other slim models will not take a normal lens cap due to the lack of front threading). My second choice was the Nikon 20mm because it's a good lens, and smaller in size. But not really wide enough for everything I would want to do. Hence second place. Camera gear is tough choices because of the money involved. The good news is a person can do a lot with just a little. I saw a show (on TV) of a combat war photographer that used a rangefinder with a fixed lens..He was a communist photographer..He just had to crawl in closer at his own risk. But his pictures were great..I guess you could say he zoomed with his belly, rather then his feet or zoom lens..</p>

[marek_stepien]

<p>Last year I compared Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16, and at the same time I rented Nikon 12-24 and Nikon 14-24 and compared them as well.<br>

To the contrary what it is most written here, Sigma 10-20 was sharper than Tokina 11-16, especially at the wider end, and gave better contrast, except corners. It must be a sample variation. I keep Sigma and I'm happy. Now when I compare Sigma with my Nikon 18-200, Sigma is much sharper and gives a better contrast and colors. I did not consider Tokina 12-24 since that lens has problem with contrast, even if it is pretty sharp.<br>

Nikon 12-24 was a little better, especially it was pretty even out to the corners, but at double cost, so I skipped it. However Nikon 14-24 was an extraordinary lens. It was very sharp, but I liked most how it mixed the colors. This lens is on my list to buy.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>The Tokina 12-24 is a bargain considering what you are getting. I got lucky and picked mine up in like new condition for $275.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Primes wider than 20 mm are quite expensive and not generally good on modern DX cameras. $500 is basically the cheapest price to enter the game of superwides with at least some degree of quality.</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>Marek: I assure you that the Tokina 11-16 is much sharper <b>at the same aperture</b> as the Sigma. Comparing the one lens at 2.8 versus the other at 4.0 or 5.6 is simply not a reasonable comparison. <br>

If you have seen something else, the lens was defective, which is not unheard of.</p>

[rossb]

<p>The Tokina is an excellent lens. I have owned and used it extensively..Someone above said that the lens has contrast problems but I would disagree with that. It does not have contrast problems. It does work very well, strong construction, very sharp at all focal lengths, and f/stops. It does not have a vignetting problem but you do need thin filters when using the rotating type such filters such as a polarizer or circular nd grad filter. The two issues I have with my Tokina is it is susceptiple to flare and you will at times find flare in your images even when using the lens hood. Also the filter threads are plastic so you much take great care not to damage them when using filters. I cannot say it is a better lens then other brands because I have no experience with the Sigma or Nikon models. I feel positive that the Nikon model would be fantastic however but just have no experience with it. But overal the Tokina is an excellent value in a lens. I would certainly purchase it again.</p>

[marek_stepien]

<p>

<p>Joel: Yes Photozone shows Tokina 11-16 as much sharper than Sigma 10-20, however comparing the two brand new lenses I had, I did not see so much difference, and Sigma was better on the wide end (except corners) and mixed colors better, that meant it had better contrast. Also I liked pictures best from Sigma. I would stay with Tokina if it would be better for me. It may be that I got sample variation, an exceptional good Sigma and only a so-so Tokina.<br />Of course I compared them on the same aperture. Besides, if I remember well there was no much difference in Tokina sharpness from 2.8 to 8. It was almost eaqually sharp at 2.8, 4, 5.6 and 8, both in the center and corners. That was the strong side of Tokina. Sigma was not so even.</p>

</p>

[35mmdelux]

<p>If you think Tokina 12-24s are expensive, try the Nikon version. OUCH!!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>personally, i would describe the tokina 12-24 as one of the better values in Serious Glass out there. compared to the Nikon, it's only a hair's breadth below in terms of sharpness and shares the same general characteristics, i.e. much sharper at the long end than the wide end. at f/8-11 its really sharp and contrasty, but pretty usable at f/4 for people pics when you don't need such a wide DoF. no AF-S, but then you dont need fast AF to snap still subjects. i've had mine for two years and really like it, and it's really hard to complain about getting such a solidly-built lens at that price. the only thing cheaper that goees that wide is the sigma 10-20, which has a fairly slow max aperture at the long end.</p><div></div>

[35mmdelux]

<p>Eric Arnold -- great shot!</p>

[yoshio]

<p>I will here also second the Tokina 12-24 I like it has rugged build, front element does not turn (handy with Polarizer and graduated filter), exterior is solid (not extending or shrinking) and can take substantial hits (I fell over with camera). Image is sharp as my EF 24 f2.8 (I am canon user).</p>

<p>I think with it I can make good images (as others have also said)</p><div></div>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Thanks for all of your sobering responses. I think that you're all right: it is a great lens for the money. I'm using it on DX cameras. Right now on D1X and D200 bodies. Eventually maybe a D2X or a D2H.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>one mo' for the road...</p><div></div>

[munim]

<p>I think I'm also getting a Tokina, either 11-16 or 12-24, after reading all the glowing reviews and looking at the sample pictures. What I'll do is "fish" - scan the classifieds for someone desperate enough to let either go at any price.</p>