UW DX lens - New Tokina 12-28 f/4 AT-X PRO DX

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>Hi dear friends!<br>

I am seriously thinking of adding an ultra wide lens in my arsenal for my D300s and D7000 cameras. Up to now I was considering the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which I have seen and used on a friend's D90. Lately I am hearing good things about this new UW lens from Tokina which also adds a little more length than it's predecessor, the 12-24mm. Supposedly it's sharp with low distortion, well built, good AF, downside being it's chromatic aberration. I can live with that.<br>

<br />Has anyone of you tried/bought this lens? I would love to hear your real life impressions. All suggestions and opinions are welcome! Thank you!</p>

<div></div>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Can't speak for the 12-28 but I have the original 12-24 and I've been very happy with it. If the 12-28 is improved, then so much the better. My only reservation is that I would prefer 2.8 but 4.0 hasn't held me back for the uses I've had for this lens (mostly shooting events/receptions/parties where I'm working a crowd and need a wide lens because I can't back up; I'm using flash in those situations and stopping down to about f/8 anyhow). </p>

[richard_thomas9]

<p>Ultra Wide Angle you say? 16mm is still not wide enough for DX. Tested the 11mm and had the 12mm when I used to shoot DX. They are both really good lenses but I opted for the 12mm to save some extra $$$ plus I rarely shoot wide open with my UWA lenses. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>12-28 seems like an odd choice. The mid-range of pro zooms tends to start at 24mm, and - while there used to be a lot of lenses starting at 28mm - it seems to me that 24 is the new 28. I'd have thought, in an ultra-wide lens, it would be more important to have the extra at the short end rather than at the long. Oh well, curious.<br />

<br />

Not that I've ever seen this lens or can contribute much, I'm just intrigued by the marketing decision in launching a lens of this spec. Other than as a medium zoom for a 1-series, at least. :-)</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I thought it was a new underwater lens :)</p>

[jonb]

<p>As a DX lens, it gives roughly the same fields of view as an FX user would get from Nikon's 18-35 FX lens. OK, this goes a little longer, which is fine. So, I don't really see the range as particularly odd.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Jonathan - I guess I'm biased by the abutting 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400 fast zoom range; 35mm seems a slightly odd place to stop on FX as well, since - excluding the 28-300 - it's got quite a lot of overlap with a normal zoom; I assume it's historical, with the 16-35 and 18-35 succeeding the 17-35. Not that there's anything wrong with "35mm and wider" as a useful range, but I'd have thought the priority would have been stretching the wide end, where Sigma have the 8-16mm and 10-20mm to compete against.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>12-28 is genius. Overlap is a GREAT thing, because it results in fewer lens changes.<br /><br />I have the amazing 11-16, but I have to say, I use it almost all the time at the wide end (it may as well be a prime), and you can lose shots when you have to change lenses so easy. I only put it on when I KNOW I'm going to be shooting ONLY wide for a while.</p>

[andylynn]

If it's anything like their 17-35 FX lens it will be a winner. I just picked up one of those as a factory refurb for under $500

and it's a great lens. I'm not bothered much by the lack of f/2.8 in an ultrawide, and these f/4 lenses are very manageable

in size and cost.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I'm biased by the abutting 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400 fast zoom range</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you picked the only possible sequence that doesn't have overlap. How does the 16-35, 17-35, 18-35 fit in with the 24-70, 24-85, 24-120? Overlap wherever you look - both on DX and FX.</p>

<p>I actually see the 12-28 as one that can stay on the camera as a walk-around and maybe even replace a mid-range zoom. That's something the 11-16 isn't well suited for. Having 4mm more at the longer end than with a 12-24 doesn't make that much of a difference though and I rather have a few more mm at the shorter end. It's the same thing with the Sigma 18-35/1.8 - I'd rather have that lens start at 16 and end at 28.</p>

<p>I have been going to a few combinations and neither a 10/12-24 and 24-85, nor a 11-16/17-55 worked well - in both cases, I had to change lenses (though less so in the latter case). Now, with the 16-35 on a D700, I have found my one lens solution - it's wide enough for me and also long enough for me not to miss a mid-range zoom.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>I actually see the 12-28 as one that can stay on the camera as a walk-around and maybe even replace a mid-range zoom. That's something the 11-16 isn't well suited for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>EXACTLY! My 11-16 is a totally specialized lens. I don't ever "leave it on". If it were 12-28, I might actually leave it on as my default lens.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Yes, I wasn't considering it a replacement for the 11-16, I was just surprised that the successor to a 12-24 wasn't an 11-24 or 10-24 rather than a 12-28 - it seemed an odd end to prioritize. But there seems to be enthusiasm, so what do I know?<br />

<br />

I did say that the zooms which end at 35mm seemed a bit odd to me. Of course, there used to be a 35-xxx lens range (35-70 f/2.8 and 35-105 f/3.5-4.5). I assume, without looking into the history, that these changed into the 28-70 f/2.8, then into the 24-70 f/2.8, making them substantially more flexible at the wide end. Much like the DX zooms that start in the 17mm and 18mm range, even if these are nearer the old 28mm full frame lenses. I assumed that the zooms which ended at 35mm were an anachronism, and the new versions were there for historical continuation... but if people like the range, apologies for projecting! (Actually, I'm not even projecting properly, since I no longer use my 28-200 on my D800, I've yet to try my 28-85 to see whether it's any better, I don't have any other normal zoom lenses, and my latest lens purchase was a 35mm... So I'm probably best ignored, as usual!)</p>

[richard_driscoll]

<p>I think 12-28 quite a sensible zoom range. 28 mm is the sensor diagonal, the equivalent of 43 mm on DX/film and what used to be considered the 'normal' focal length. I believe Leitz went for a slightly longer 50 mm with the Elmar because it was easier to design and it rather became the new standard. KR has a review of the 12-28 but I haven't found any more yet and I want to know if the flare and CA problems have been resolved since these are reckoned to be rather poor on the Tokina 12-24.</p>

<p> </p>

[jonb]

<p>I thinks it's a little simplistic to equate additional mm at the wide end with mm at the long end, as though the engineers could just slide the zoom range down without difficulty. As an engineering problem, I think the difference between, say, 10-24 mm and 12-28 mm is a lot bigger than "just 2 mm."</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>...the difference between, say, 10-24 mm and 12-28 mm is a lot bigger than "just 2 mm"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed - but technology has improved over the last 30 years - going from a 25-50/4 which was state of the art in the eighties to a 24-70/2.8 that is state of the art today. I seem to recall an article about the 25-50 and the fact that it was "only" a 2x zoom and why it didn't reach 24mm: for every mm on the short end, a couple had to be shaved off at the long end; and the ratio gets worse the more you slide towards shorter focal lengths. Which is probably why we haven't seen a 24-85/2.8 (yet) (or a 16-70/2.8 DX). And I personally find it quite amazing that we now have a 18-35/1.8 DX zoom. Which I would get in a heart beat if I hadn't decided to not invest into DX glass anymore. Quite amazing that it only costs about 4x the price of the 35/1.8DX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>zooms which end at 35mm seemed a bit odd to me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I am sure glad they exist; I wouldn't trade my 16-35 for a 24-70. And the 14-24 on FX would put me in the same boat as the 11-16 does on DX - it's too specialized to stay on all the time.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Jonathan - absolutely. I don't want to dismiss the engineering effort, or claim that the difference between 12mm and 10mm is a simple fix. I was just surprised at the priorities of the design team, when I would have expected more sales to have come from having extra width over the predecessor of this lens than extra length. However, since there seem to be plenty of people on this thread who are quite happy with a wide-to-normal zoom (and it's arguably more flexible than, say, the 18-35), I'm happy to be wrong!</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>For some reason I can not post links to reviews of this lens here. Anyhow...<br /> The general output is positive enough to make someone consider this lens. From what you've also said the Tokina 11-16 & 12-24 have been real good lenses, especially the 11-16 which is probably considered the best ultra wide DX lens, and I do not see a reason why this new 12-28 could be an exemption to the rule. Of course I would love to see the US prices of this lens valid for my country but I guess this is a joke...<br /> <br /><br /></p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>12-28 seems like an odd choice. The mid-range of pro zooms tends to start at 24mm, and - while there used to be a lot of lenses starting at 28mm - it seems to me that 24 is the new 28. I'd have thought, in an ultra-wide lens, it would be more important to have the extra at the short end rather than at the long. Oh well, curious.<br /> <br />Not that I've ever seen this lens or can contribute much, I'm just intrigued by the<br>

<a id="FALINK_1_0_0" href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bxng">marketing</a> decision in launching a lens of this spec.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>with all due respect, andrew, from this comment it seems unlikely you've ever covered an event like a street fair with a 12-24 or 10-24 DX lens. in those situations, a longer long end would indeed result in less lens changing, as was earlier noted. as a 12-24 owner since 2007, i applaud tokina's decision, although the extra 4mm isnt enough to make me upgrade to the new one. but it is nice to see an older design receive a meaningful update.</p>

<p>also, while a 10-30 DX would probably be an awesome lens in theory, the nikon and tokina 12-24s are much more highly regarded than the nikon/tamron 10-24s, so that suggests, as jonathan notes, it's not as easy to just add more on the wide end. btw, tamron used to make a 28-105/2.8, which would be a near-perfect length for concert photography on DX.</p>

[Mike_R1664876643]

<p>I've been interested in this lens too. Currently 16mm is the widest focal length I have for my D300s, and I've been wanting to get into doing more interior architectural photography. I also shoot a lot of landscapes. I just wonder whether I'm better off paying more and getting one of the Nikon wide-angles. But I'm going to see what kind of reviews the 12-28 gets. I'm still considering the Tokina 11-16 as well, but I'm not sure I would like the limited range. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>FWIW, lenstip states that the lens performs better than the way more expensive Nikkor 12-24 and also than the Tamron 10-24; its performance is at the same level as the Tokina 12-24. As is common with Tokina lenses, CA is quite high though and the lens flares easily.</p>

<p>Yet another lens that will push the resale value especially of the 12-24 Nikkor down :-(</p>

<p>And the real kick-ass DX combo consists of the 11-16/2.8 and the 18-35/1.8 - for $200 more than the Nikkor 12-24 costs. Or the cost of the 35/1.8 DX that one doesn't need anymore ;-)</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Canon's 17-40mm f/4 lens was, and still is, one of the most popular and widely used landscape lenses for full-frame. A lens of 12-28mm focal length is an almost exact match for this on DX, so why wouldn't it be a useful range? The f/4 aperture also keeps the cost, size and weight down, as well as being a fully useable aperture; as opposed to an 'emergency use only' f/2.8 with its inevitably inferior corner definition.</p>

<p>Just my 2p's worth.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Eric: Guilty. (All due respect in this case isn't much.) I have used a 14-24 for event coverage on FX; I guess there are times when a 16-35 might be more useful, and correspondingly so might an 18-42, though I guess that's not really the style of photos that I usually end up taking. I'll buy that some might have a use for it, though.<br />

<br />

And yes, I'm not claiming that turning a 12-24 into a 10-24 is easy, just querying what the engineers would be best spending their time trying to achieve, from a "selling lenses" perspective. But I'm happy to be mistaken, as usual. :-)</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I never understood this obsession with not allowing overlap in a lens kit. These are focal lengths, not cards in a poker deck. It's OK to have more than one. My 16-85mm doesn't complement a 70-200mm or a 70-300mm lens any worse than an 18-70mm would. There are no adverse effects to having 2 lenses that slightly overlap, especially considering that I can have only one lens on my camera at a time. Conversely, I don't see the need to have every single focal length covered: a 17-55mm lens would back up a 70-200mm just as well as an 18-70mm would. Those 15mm in the middle are a matter of one step, or slight cropping in the very extreme instance that 60-65mm works for the shot, but not 55mm or 70mm. Some people are collecting focal lengths like they're Pokemon or something.</p>

<p>As to adding focal lengths on the short end, I am sure that it requires much more compromise (either in price/size or in image quality) than adding a few millimeters on the telephoto end. The lens is no less useful than a 12-24mm, only more so, so color me excited.</p>