Nikon 10-24 f3.5-4.5 vs. Nikon 12-24 f4.0

[cleary71]

Can someone please explain to me why the 12-24 lens would be, on average, $300 more. It seems to me that the 10-24 would be more since you get an extra 2mm and the availability to go to f10 with it. Both are G ED-IF AF-S DX type lenses. I am on the fence between the two and am leaning heavily towards the 10-24 since I have heard great things about both of them. Also, didn't the 10-24 use to be $799? Thanks for any input you may have!

 

[480sparky]

The 12-24 is a constant max. aperture. The 10-24 isn't. Some folks desire that constant aperture.

 

[Markw]

Get the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 AT-X Pro. It's a constant aperture, is beautifully crisp, and has basically no distortion. If the zoomability is what you're looking for, this isn't the lens for you though. Keep in mind Sigma also makes a 10-20 F/3.5 constant aperture if you want the reach and extra light.

Mark