Tokina Question

[jenkins]

<p>I have been thinking about a wide angle lens for a while now, i have a Nikon D40, i went into my local camera shop and was discussing it with the guy in there and he pointed out to me the Tokina 12-24 AF PRO DX11 which i understand has it's own onboard focus motor as my camera does not.<br>

My question is does anyone own this lens as i would like to see and hear any views on it, how sharp it is etc or is there a better lens for the job, the build quality was incredible on the Tokina.<br>

One more question is that before i go spending out on lenses for the D40, would i be better off spending it on a new body for the longer term, the D40 is the only DSLR i have owned and i often wonder what i might be missing out on, i do miss the bracketing feature on my present camera, what advantages could i expect to improve on with a D90?<br>

Sorry for so many questions but when i make the move, i want it to be an intelligent one.</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Hi Simon!<br>

About spending money on cameras I am not sure! If you can afford to buy a new camera and lens, well that is great! If you can only afford one, well, cameras come and go. Lenses you keep them longer.<br>

I don't know about the Tokina 12-24. I am the lucky owner of a really great Tokina 11-16 and for my own experiences with my lens I would never hesitate to buy another Tokina lens. Just by handling it I feel so much more assure with a Tokina than a Tamrom or Sigma lens. Don't get me wrong, if I have a choice I would always get a Nikon instead! My 11-16 is the only third party lens I own and I bought it coz at that time Nikon didn't have any wide fast lens. <br>

So even though I don't have any experience with the lens you are asking for my reply is to assure you that I don't think you can go wrong with Tokina!</p>

<p>Good luck and enjoy your lens!</p>

<p> </p>

[vivid_earth_photographics]

<p>You'll find almost uniformly positive things said about the Tokina 12-24mm. Sharp, built like a tank with highly 'pro' feel. At half the price of the Nikon version, it is the choice of many people for whom cost would rule out the Nikon.<br>

I believe there is a second generation of this lens now on the market. I have the first. It is one of my favorite.<br>

I agree with above poster: go for the glass and not a new body. If you aren't feeling constrained with the D40, continue to enjoy it. It is easy to confuse 'need' and 'want' when you get excited about photography. For now expand your point-of-view options and get the glass, I say.</p>

[gogu]

<p>Hi Simon!<br>

Photo.net has a review for this lens, you may find it useful:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/tokina/12-24-f4/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/tokina/12-24-f4/</a></p>

<p>rgrds</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Thanks Rene<br>

The 11-16 does not work on my camera, i was seriously impressed with the build on the Tokina, built like a tank, i wondered what Nikon has to compete with this lens and is it better quality, the guy in the shop said the Tokina was made better and he sells a lot of them.<br>

I really have no idea about wide angles, there are so many of them.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I believe that as a general rule if money is an issue it's better to put your money into high quality lenses than upgrading bodies. Unless you have special needs, any of today's DSLR's are adequate for most amateurs. You're more likely to benefit from adding a good lens or upgrading a lens than upgrading the body.</p>

<p>Is there something that the D90 has that you need that the D40 doesn't have?</p>

[Rene11664880918]

<p>Sorry Simon! I wasn't trying to recommend the 11-16 since it doesn't have a motor built in! I was just trying to let you know my feelings toward Tokina! <br>

Now that you say that you don't have much experience with wide lenses let me tell you.... AF its not a big deal when using a ultra wide.... But if I had a D40 I wouldn't hesitate to go for the 12-24 II.</p>

[Palouse]

<p>The review that gogu refers to:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="../equipment/tokina/12-24-f4">http://www.photo.net/equipment/tokina/12-24-f4/</a> <br /> is for the first generation 12-24 . The object of your lust is the Pro DXII, that is supposed to be even better. I have the original version and love it, though I must confess that my 17-55 keeps the Tokina off the camera!</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>+1 for what Mark Drutz said. The real question is whether you'll be sticking with DX format.</p>

<p>That said, at the least, you'd get a lighter wallet, improved high ISO performance, a heavier, more complex camera (but more creative control if you can use it), and if IIRC, active D-lighting, if that matters to you. Oh yeah...and video that's outdone by a lot of P&S cameras IMO.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>simon, i have the original tokina 12-24. super lens. it will literally widen your perspective. i'm not sure what your other lenses are, but i think everyone should have an ultrawide.</p>

<p>as far as upgrading your body, it generally makes sense to get lenses first, then a new body. nothing wrong with a d40, although if you are thinking of upgrading, the question is what features are you lacking or wanting? a d5000 or d90 would probably be all the upgrade you'd need, but even then, it helps to have a nice selection of glass ready if and when you switch.<br>

Re: DX vs. FX, going from a d40 to a d700 doesnt make a whole lot of sense IMO, but will cost a whole lot of dollars. one thing to consider is that wide options are fairly plentiful and relatively cheap on DX, and relatively limited and fairly expensive on FF. for example, the nikon 10-24 and 12-24 are DX lenses. so are the tokina 12-24 and 11-16. the nikon 14-24 is the best ultrawide for FF, but costs more than 4x the cost of a d40 body alone, not counting the cost of a d700. so you'd spend almost 5 grand for a few extra mm, a bit better high ISO performance, and the inability to use your DX lenses at full resolution, which would necessitate buying all-new lenses.see what i mean?</p>

[dweezil]

<p>The Tokina is easily one of my favourite lenses, certainly in DX.</p>

<p>I know he is not very liked here but Ken Rockwell has a great review of the ultra wides that where available at that time. And while he is in general not a great fan of third party lenses, even he found the 12-24 tokina the best buy.<br>

I can npot set the link here but with google you can find the review.</p>

<p>I Know he is not alway correct but on this one he's done the work</p>

 

[pcnilssen]

<p>For another comparison between the wide-angle zooms, this shootout might be of interest: <a href="http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_angles_shootout/index.html">http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_angles_shootout/index.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I checked all the ultra-wides out and ended up with the 11-16. I thought that the Tokina 12-24 was the clear winner for most people, and after my experience with my 11-16 I also wouldn't hesitate to buy that lens. Not for a moment!</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>My theory is that it's better to put together a full range of lenses before upgrading the body. You won't have as wide of a selection of lenses to choose from with the D40, but there are still plenty of great lenses that would work for you. It's been my experience that third party lenses are just as good as Nikon brabded ones, and some may actually be better choices even if there wasn't a price difference.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Thanks for all these answers, Eric my other lenses are the kit lens 18-55 and 70-300, i am pleased everybody is giving the Tokina a thumbs up, it really did feel like a quality lens, it is a bit hard to say what i am not getting from my D40 as it is all i know and i don't have any complaints at all, but i do wonder what a D90 might improve upon, i know it's noise levels at high ISO is very good.<br>

Still i am going to go for a new lens on all this advice, thanks for all the links i will read them all.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>I too have the original Tokina 12-24 and love it. Very sharp with minimal distortion. The only issue it has is CA but i don't make large print so I do not care and the CA can be removed by software, if necessary. Most important I have yet to seen it to find it a problem to me personally. The second down side is that it is heavier than the Nikon version.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The second down side is that it is heavier than the Nikon version.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>that's because the build quality is better than either the nikon 12-24 or the 10-24. not really a downside IMO, although it will balance better on a larger camera than a d40 if you are shooting handheld.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>it is a bit hard to say what i am not getting from my D40 as it is all i know and i don't have any complaints at all</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>no complaints? no reason to get a new body. invest in glass instead.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Eric the trouble is ignorance is bliss, i am sure if i hired a D300 for a weekend which i can't where i live i would want to change the body, what you don't know you don't miss ;)</p>

<p> </p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>I have the original 12-24mm Tokina which is excellent - except that in adverse lighting you will get prominent and rather ugly greenish reflections in the image from the sun striking lens elements.</p>

<p>This is supposed to be better with the new version that sports improved lens coating.</p>