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

cleary71

TPF Noob!
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
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

Chief Free Electron Relocator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
24,921
Reaction score
8,883
Location
Iowa
Website
pixels.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
The 12-24 is a constant max. aperture. The 10-24 isn't. Some folks desire that constant aperture.
 

Markw

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
4,057
Reaction score
230
Location
Baltimore
Website
www.outsidetherainbow.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
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
 

Most reactions

ClickASnap

New Topics

Top