Tokina 12-24 f/4 ATX Pro, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 or Nikon 12-24 f/4 AF-S DX ?

[orcama60]

<p>Eric, I am not planning to shoot everything at f/2.8 but some pictures ( with the intention of being creative ) I may take them at f/2.8. Now, the range between 12-24 is great so I do have a question now, how sharp is either the Tokina 12-24 / Nikon 12-24 at the wide end in case I need to shoot at that f/stop ? </p>

 

[orcama60]

<p>Yes Breogan, thank you for that. Photozone is given to the Nikon more advantage than the Tokina. Nikon is definitely a better lens but I posted the question to see if somebody have used the Tokina and what results they got with it. <br>

I am starting to think that for my camera, the better lens of all may be either the Nikon 12-24 or the Nikon 10-24 as Shun is pointing. For DX, 10-24 sounds more logical if I want to go wider. </p>

[bikealps]

<p>Hi Maurice,<br>

I have the Nikon 12-24 and love it. It's really useful for interiors, particularly kitchens. It takes a while to learn to use. Because it is so wide, people placed at the edges of the frame will look wierd (even worse in the corners). Also, if you use flash, you must bounce to get adequate coverage and the lens can block the flash and give you an odd half-round shadow on the bottom of the picture.<br>

If you are shooting a wedding, I would expect you would want your main lens to be the standard workhorse, an 18-55 on DX or 24-70 on FX. A 12-24 and 70-300 combo would leave a big and awkward gap in the middle.<br>

Attached is one example photo from my D90 + 12-24 taken last week in Japan. This is at the garden behind the New Otani hotel and illustrates how you can use this for near-far compositions. Even though this is at 12mm, it doesn't look ultra-wide.</p><div></div>

[bikealps]

<p>another example, this time at 24mm</p><div></div>

[bikealps]

<p>Here's what happens if you use direct (non-bounced flash). can you see the round shadow at the bottom of the picture? This is with fill flash and at 24mm. It would be much worse if flash was all your light.</p><div></div>

[bikealps]

<p>I love it for restaurant interiors.</p><div></div>

[paul_hodgson2]

<p>I know very few lenses that perform at their peak when wide open. My choice would be the Tokina 11-16 stopped down and would expect that by f4 the lens will be performing better than a lens that starts at f4. Also, I can't recall what camera you intend mounting the lens to but assume it's a DX camera body.</p>

[bikealps]

<p>see how it makes the guy on the right look fat. he is one skinny dude and this is only at 19mm.</p><div></div>

[bikealps]

<p>...and you can even use an ultra-wide as a portrait lens. Note that perspective on this shot is heavily corrected using gimp (free image-editing software) so the buildings don't look like they are leaning over.</p><div></div>

[jonsjons]

<p>I haven't read all of the responses here, so I apologize if someone else has already mentioned this, but what about the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5? That would give you a lot more flexibility in focal length range than the Tokina 11-16, and be only a half a stop slower. I used to own the Tokina and loved it, but I would think the limited range might be a problem for wedding work. Note that the Sigma I mentioned is a different lens than the variable aperture 10-20 f/4-5.6.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Jonathan,</p>

<p>The reviews I've read of the new sigma 10-20 f3.5 were a bit disappointing, check photozone.de especially.</p>

<p>btw, although I don't shoot weddings (I am definitely an amateur photographer), I actually work in a church and interface with all the photographers who shoot weddings here.</p>

<p>Not one of them... <em>I repeat, not one..</em>. has <em>ever</em> used anything wider than 28mm FX/17mm DX for <em>one single shot </em>in a wedding in this building in the past five years. YMMV, of course, but if I was shooting a wedding, I'm not even sure I'd ever get the 11-16 out of the bag.</p>

[leericks]

<p>I agree with Shun and Peter Hamm. I have the 12-24 Nikon and have used the 10-24. Optically it is a wash but the two millimeters makes a huge difference in creativity. Perhaps the 12-24 is build a bit better but not enough to matter. In the final analysis you are talking 2/3 stop between F2.8 and F3.5. Frankly not enough to matter. Even a full stop is a quibble. You mentioned your flash. Assuming you can use it (and you certainly can for posed shots in the dressing room) the apeture question is moot. </p>

<p>I also agree with Peter in that I doubt you will use anything wider than 17-18 in the church. And that probably not that much. I think the same will apply to the dressing room. It would be a shame to look for opportunities to use a lens when you should be paying attention to the ceremony.</p>

<p>If you have not done many weddings before I think it would be best to keep it as simple as possible. Two bodies and two lenses. (and two flashes by the way) You will be busy enough without having to consider swaping lenses frequently. Further. You will be in the way, under foot, annoying and otherwise unwelcome to people who are as preoccupied as two people can be who are not on the gallows. Changing lenses, flashes and doing nifty poses may be possible but just may not be. If I were you I would use two lenses on two bodies. One 17-50 AFS F/2.8 and one 70-200 AFS VR. (You have the 16-85 so I assume you will use that in place of the 17-50 in my kit.) That is it. If you want the other lens in your pocket just in case you get a chance to use it then any of the ones you mentioned will be just fine. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>how sharp is either the Tokina 12-24 / Nikon 12-24 at the wide end in case I need to shoot at that f/stop ?</em></p>

<p>maurice, i haven't used the nikon. but in my experience with the tokina 12-24,it's actually pretty sharp wide open for people shots as long as the people are all on the same focal plane--for critical landscapes where you need corner-to-corner performance and good rendering of detail, i like to stop it down to f/8 or f/11. but i prefer not to shoot it wide open if i can help it, simply because it's so much better stopped down, so i use flash indoors. i'm not sure why you wouldn't want to use flash in that situation.</p>

<p>however, the bigger issue is that if you shoot a group of people at 12mm, you need to not be too close or else distortion can happen on the edges, as Allan hints. So in general, with people shots, i like to shoot at about 18-24mm. after a lot of practice with the lens, i've found that shooting people at wide angles works well with one central image in the center of the frame. if you shoot really wide with people on the edges too close to you, they won't look normal. if you have one central image and people further away in the background, it comes out ok. not sure if i am explaining this correctly, but it took quite a lot of practice shooting an UWA before i really got the hang of it.</p>

<p>if you go back a bit in the thread and look at the 12mm shot i posted, that's actually the proper distance (maybe about 8-10 feet) to avoid the distorted effect. stopping down a bit does help there. but just about any wide-angle lens will have some distortion at the widest focal length and open apertures, even a 17-xx 2.8 lens.</p>

<p>i would weigh Peter's advice heavily, as UWA generally isn't part of a wedding photographer's kit. Honestly, i think you'd be better off with a 17-55 for what you're trying to do. i do like UWAs for shooting fairs and festivals, and also PJ-type stuff where background context is important, to give a sense of a "scene" happening, rather than just shooting an isolated subject. but it really does take a lot of practice to become competent with an UWA. in general, i think there's a temptation when you first get an UWA to always shoot at the widest focal length, when in actuality, that may not be optimal. even with the 12-24, 12mm is too wide much of the time, especially for people shots, and the same would be true of a 10-20 or 10-24, but more so.</p>

<p>i'll post a few more shots, to give you some idea of what works with an UWA</p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I've short three weddings as an amateur, the Tokina 12-24 f/4 was there three times and I think in total made around 12 shots (out of 100s over those 3 days)....And I think only 3 of those were "nice to have". Wide angles take serious time to get used to, as a creative tool and it either fits your style or not. So, frankly, I really think you can do without for a wedding.<br>

As already stated, the 17-55 range is much more important. I've used a 18-70 glued to f/5.6 for a lot of the photos on those three weddings, but in hindsight, a f/2.8 17-55 would have been ideal.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>one more...</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>how sharp is either the Tokina 12-24 / Nikon 12-24 at the wide end in case I need to shoot at that f/stop</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends on how picky you are. Really. It isn't as good as the 14-24. There will certainly be differences if you pixel peep or make huge enlargements. I have seen excellent images taken with either lens at normal viewing distances and can't see a difference. And since you will be hand holding your camera, differences will be blurred even more (pun intended) - there isn't much point in arguing over differences in test chart shots if you aren't locking your camera down on a sturdy tripod the same way it's done in the lab. Even using the 14-24 in this scenario likely won't make a difference in the final images. This appears to be yet another case of over-analyzing - analysis paralysis.</p>

[orcama60]

<p><em>One 17-50 AFS F/2.8 and one 70-200 AFS VR. (You have the 16-85 so I assume you will use that in place of the 17-50 in my kit.) That is it. If you want the other lens in your pocket just in case you get a chance to use it then any of the ones you mentioned will be just fine.</em></p>

<p>Thanks Lee. Yes, my plan is to have two lenses, two cameras and two flashes. My D300 with a 70-200 f/2.8 VR II and the other camera ( probably another D300 ) with the 16-85 mm VR or if I can buy it ( or rent it ) the 17-55 mm f/2.8. Initially I thought to have on my second camera, one of the 3 lenses posted in the thread but after all your inputs, you are right and I would not like to take any risk by using a wide angle lens and not be able to use it as it should. I am better off using the 16-85 or the Nikon 17-55. </p>

<p><em>if you go back a bit in the thread and look at the 12mm shot i posted, that's actually the proper distance (maybe about 8-10 feet) to avoid the distorted effect. stopping down a bit does help there. but just about any wide-angle lens will have some distortion at the widest focal length and open apertures, even a 17-xx 2.8 lens.</em></p>

<p>You are right Eric, having a woman looks fatter than she is, especially if that woman is the bride, will not be any good to build my reputation. I thought any of those lenses were not too complicated to use but after did I read all the inputs in here, I will stick to either the 16-85 that I own or I will buy or rent the 17-55 f/2.8. There are two reasons I wanted to have a wide angle lens : to take shots to a big group of people and to focus background and subject at the same time in some pictures in which the background is appealing to the whole view of the picture in relation to the subject. I have seen some pictures shot with wide angle in which both, the foreground and background, are related and looks great. The depth of field of these lenses is something that it may be useful in some pictures at the wedding. Perhaps, what I can do is to rent one of them, probably the Nikon 12-24 just in case I need it to take some pictures at the reception, in which I will have the time to switch lenses. </p>

<p>At the ceremony, I will definitely have my 70-200 f/2.8 and the 17-55 f/2.8 ( or the 16-85 ) with two flashes ( SB-800 and SB-900 ). Thank you guys for all your help.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p><em>I have seen some pictures shot with wide angle in which both, the foreground and background, are related and looks great. The depth of field of these lenses is something that it may be useful in some pictures at the wedding. Perhaps, what I can do is to rent one of them, probably the Nikon 12-24 just in case I need it to take some pictures at the reception, in which I will have the time to switch lenses.</em></p>

<p>maurice, shooting with the 17-55 is a sensible idea. i'd just rent one if you can't buy one. you can always shoot that at f/8 if you need DoF.</p>

<p>what may not be so sensible is picking a paid gig as a time to experiment with UWA. just trying to help you build your rep.</p>

<p>just in case this may be helpful, when i got the 12-24, i had never shot an UWA before. i took a few scenic shots and thought, wow, this is great. then i tried to do some people shots. the results were not so great. i was either too far back or so close up that faces and body parts got all twisted. that was discouraging. this is not a lens for people shots, i thought. so i shot with other lenses for a while. every now and then, i would look at the tokina, admire its build quality, then put it back in its case. finally, i resolved to teach myself how to use the lens. i went out with a tripod and took some landscape shots at sunset. really took my time setting up shots, manual-focussing at infinity, doing long exposures, etc.--all the things i normally didnt do, covering events fast-n-dirty style. after a couple months, i built up enough confidence to shoot the 12-24 during a daytime festival. i only used it for a few shots, where i wanted to show a big crowd. then i got a gig to do a street fair. i shot 50% of it with the 12-24 and 50% with a telezoom. after that, i did another, and another. when i shot a cycling event with hundreds of cyclists, i used the 12-24 exclusively (it's hard to ride a bike and carry two bodies, much less switch lenses). eventually, i got pretty good at using the 12-24 for people shots, though my main event lenses still remained the 17-50 and 50-150.</p>

<p>the point is, there are times when an UWA is appropriate, but there's also a learning curve with an UWA and you do want to carefully consider composition. again, most of the time, 17mm is wide enough for people.</p>

<p>maybe you're a quick study, maurice. but if you do persist in using an UWA, do yourself a favor and shoot an event with it before the wedding. preferably a similar event as to what you'll be shooting for your paid gig.i think you'll find that 12-17 range isn't as good for people shots as you perhaps thought as you really have to watch the edges and keep people out of there, especially at wider FLs and open apertures.</p>

<p>here's some examples:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>15mm</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>and, 17mm.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>14mm</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>14mm again</p><div></div>

[ninapuss]

<p>I recently flogged off my Tokina 11-16 after just six months and bought the 10-24 Nikkor and I was very happy to do so.<br />In 30 years of shooting Nikon, I had never bought third-party glass before the Tokina and was therefore totally unprepared for how wretched it would make me feel. Of course, there's a knack to using something like a Tokina: wearing an old moth-eaten cardigan and investing in a pair of cheap shoes can help to make the lens look better than it is. Similarly, a genuine Nikon lens cap can help to deflect the scrutiny of others, though this only really works at a distance. For the brief period I used the Tokina I found myself feeling so grubby, that I was washing my hands and face twice as often.<br />Now, that isn't to say that having the Nikkor has been an easy ride. I've had to contend with the sleepless nights, extreme mood swings, nail biting, sweating, blurred vision, loss of appetite and other bodily irregularities that owning it has brought about. But that's the price one pays for giving up one habit to fund another. Mind you, the Tokina was heavy-duty enough to have popped into a sock and used to club my smug, born-again non-smoking husband over the head with. I wish I'd thought of it before.<br>

But at least I can hold my head up now while I'm out and about, feeling more confident that my Nikkor will not devalue my Versace suit and Gucci shoes... it even looks good with jeans and sweater! And, as a side note, I do think the Nikkor 10-24 gathers a superior image to the Tokina in the 11-16 range (at 10mm you really have to be of a mind to embrace the distortion). If the Tokina did anything positive, apart from reminding me that being poor and looking poor are two different things, it was to underline just how often I found myself needing that 18-24 range on walkabout.<br>

Merry Christmas<br />Nina XXX</p>

[paul_scharf_]

<p>You might want to also consider that when you are shooting with a variable aperture lens, you really do not know precisely (ie within a tenth of an fstop) what aperture the lens is set at. You know within an half of an fstop or so. But, that is about it. If I'm shooting professionally under a fixed lighting situation, I definitely want a fixed aperture lens so that as I zoom in or out, I have the same exposure across multiple shots. </p>

[leericks]

<p>Nina. I know what you mean. I had a Tokina 15 - 30 and I still dream about carrying a tree trunk through a pillow-shaped world of warm colors and birds that sound like cuisinarts. We must asceed to a higher power though. Ken Rockwell.+ He says of the 11-16:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X is the best ultrawide zoom available for, Nikon DX cameras better than even Nikon's more expensive 12-24 AF-S DX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course he goes on to say of the two Nikon lenses:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Compared to the 12-24mm which it replaces, the 10-24mm is more cheaply built. The 12-24mm was built to semi-pro standards, but this new 10-24mm feels more dinky and I suspect will break if you bang the front of it into anything hard enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know what semi-pro standards are but I own a 12-24 Nikkor so I fear my editor might. I will ask her after my next performance review. It occurs to me that my 17-35 F/2.8 must be built to semi-pro standards too because it broke when it was banged by a bull horn. I can't believe Nikon did not affix a little 'things in this lens might be closer than they appear' sticker to it but that is probably just carelessness on their part. </p>

<p>I understand just how demeaning using third party equipment can be. I have a disgusting Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 that I use while my Nikkor is at El Segundo for its bi-annual spa treatment. Rather than modify my wardrobe to compliment the lens I have taken to looking defiant and saying "Hey, a girl gave it to me because I guess she felt like guilty for making me get dressed and go outside to smoke, alright?". Or. "Leave me alone Mr. 'I have a vest and brand new Canon gear'. I am working here. Besides you can't fool me. No real photographer uses one of those little zip-up CF card holders." Or the always effective: "Nice D700. Which club do you shoot for?" </p>

<p>Lest we are unfair to the little (I mean BIG) Tokina lens, Ken+ also says of it:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Here's a secret: take off the filter and hood and and this Tokina 11-16mm works reasonably well as wide as 15mm, if you don't mind softer corners wide-open, on film and FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is good to know. Buy this lens and you have the always popular 15-16mm, soft focus FX lens. Of course the fixed-focus fanboys here will still say the $900.00 Nikkor 16mm is better but they forget it costs $300.00 more. (eyeroll).</p>

<p>But lest we stray to far from the subject here I want to echo what you said about range. The extra 18-24 is probably where one wants to be most of the time anyway. And that is a really big deal if you think about it. </p>

<p> </p>