Nikkor 10-24 mm f/3.5-4.5 How good is its quality?

irreversible1993

TPF Noob!
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
So for awhile now, I've been debating on whether I should buy the Nikkor 10-24 mm f/3.5-4.5 DX lens, or the Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8 lens, and I decided that I'd want the zoom feature of the nikkor more than that of the Tokina.

BUT: I've heard Tokina is really high quality.
----------------

So, quality is now the deciding factor: How good is the quality of the Nikon 10-24? Is it completely crisp? do the edges blur out? And if so, is it noticeable? How well do the colors come out? Are they generally nice, bright and distinct colors? Or not? How does its quality compare to that of other lenses, and specifically the Tokina, if you know about it?


Oh and minor last thought: Being at 3.5 (or 4.5) aperture for the Nikkor, how fast can the shutter speed be at ISO 100-200 in a: bright day, in a well-lit room, in a somewhat-lit room, at midday, at evening light. Just very generalized ones, I just want an idea to think of how I'm missing out with the higher f-stop :)


Thanks so much!
 
So for awhile now, I've been debating on whether I should buy the Nikkor 10-24 mm f/3.5-4.5 DX lens, or the Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8 lens, and I decided that I'd want the zoom feature of the nikkor more than that of the Tokina.

BUT: I've heard Tokina is really high quality.
----------------

So, quality is now the deciding factor: How good is the quality of the Nikon 10-24? Is it completely crisp? do the edges blur out? And if so, is it noticeable? How well do the colors come out? Are they generally nice, bright and distinct colors? Or not? How does its quality compare to that of other lenses, and specifically the Tokina, if you know about it?


Oh and minor last thought: Being at 3.5 (or 4.5) aperture for the Nikkor, how fast can the shutter speed be at ISO 100-200 in a: bright day, in a well-lit room, in a somewhat-lit room, at midday, at evening light. Just very generalized ones, I just want an idea to think of how I'm missing out with the higher f-stop :)

Thanks so much!

This is a 100% crop of a corner of a shot that had a cobblestone street in it... it was shot at F22, ISO 200.. so definitely not wide open. It was the only shot I could fine that I had actually shot at 10mm. Check it for softness.... really not the best image for testing..

100percentcropofbottomrightcorner.jpg


This is the image it came from..... It is a junk shot, and I almost hate posting it!

full.jpg
 
Last edited:
Couldn't you ask this in the thread you already started about this lens
bigthumb.gif
 
You mean we don't get paid more money for opening extra threads? Gosh.. I'm so disappointed, I might go have a drinkie or three! :) Oh wait.. we don't get paid at all! Yep.. definitely a three drinkie night....
 
I haven't read not one review of the 10-24mm, but I can tell you my likes and dislikes already. i like a constant aperture through out the zoom range and I don't like a variable aperture through out the zoom range. The Tokina may be well served, and I understand it is, but the focal length is funny and it won't hold a candle to the Nikkor 14-28mm lens. The Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 is a very good option IMO.
 
I've heard much praise for the 12-24 Nikkor Lens, but it's even slower and it's widest angle is 2 mm narrower than the other nikkor. So I'm not really as interested in that one. So cgipson, how have you liked your nikon 10-24?Oh and I can't tell if that corner shot is supposed to be impressive or not; I heard many wide-angles are blurry-ish at the edges, so is this not as blurry as others? or are you showing that it is considerably blurrier? Sorry for extremely-noob questions!
 
I've heard much praise for the 12-24 Nikkor Lens, but it's even slower and it's widest angle is 2 mm narrower than the other nikkor. So I'm not really as interested in that one. So cgipson, how have you liked your nikon 10-24?Oh and I can't tell if that corner shot is supposed to be impressive or not; I heard many wide-angles are blurry-ish at the edges, so is this not as blurry as others? or are you showing that it is considerably blurrier? Sorry for extremely-noob questions!

I consider it acceptable...it is not razor sharp like it is in the center, but it is also not so bad that it would make a photo unacceptable uncropped. I know there are lenses out there with worse corners.. and some that are better. That was just a random shot showing a corner for analysis, and the lines between the stones are still well defined, and relatively sharp. I would really need to shoot a brick wall (where the center and corners would have the same content) or something similar to get a better idea of the sharpness... and then do a 100% crop of the center, and of the corners.. so they can be compared more accurately.

Supposedly this lens is weakest at 10mm with wide open aperture.. which is to be expected. If I get a chance, I will go find a brick wall... and do some shots for comparison.
 
Last edited:
Because of the weight and cost, I really like the new plastic DX lens.
The 10-24 Nikkor is one of the best for my use.
However, my 35f/1.8 already has a ding on the filter threads.
Of course, a filter would protect the threads, but they usually degrade the image quality.
 
Here's an indoor shot with this lens at 10mm:

DSC_4847post.jpg




Here's a 100% crop of the lower right corner:

DSC_4847Corner.jpg


Metadata is:

Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D60
Image Date: 2010-11-24 13:06:47 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 10.0mm (35mm equivalent: 15mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 1.000 s
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Light Source: Cool White Fluorescent
Flash Fired: No
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top