Nikon 10-24mm Lens

Josh220 · Jul 23, 2009

Has anyone used this lens? I think it is still pretty new since it doesn't have many reviews or information about it yet. What do you think of it?

Nikon | 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens | 2181

Would this be a good way to combine the 12-24 and 10-20 that I am considering? Or would I be better off going with the Nikon 12-24 or Sigma 10-20?

Thanks

bigboi3 · Jul 23, 2009

I would go witht he Nikon 12-24 f/2.8... or if you don't want to pay the price for the Nikon 12-24.. i would suggest the new Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 EX DC HSM constant aperture lens.

Josh220 · Jul 23, 2009

bigboi3 said:
I would go witht he Nikon 12-24 f/2.8... or if you don't want to pay the price for the Nikon 12-24.. i would suggest the new Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 EX DC HSM constant aperture lens.

If there was such a thing as a Nikon 12-24 f/2.8, believe me I would. :mrgreen:

How are the optics and build quality of the newer Sigma 10-20? Most of the reviews I have read so far say it's not any better than the cheaper model, which is pretty slow and isn't as sharp as a Nikkor lens.

bigboi3 · Jul 23, 2009

OOPSIES... i meant nikon 14-24.. :lol:

I haven't tried the 12-24 yet.

I've read some reviews and they have said it is much faster on the AF. Optics and build are about the same as the older model, but the front element now has an 82mm thread size with the old one being 77.

Josh220 · Jul 23, 2009

bigboi3 said:
OOPSIES... i meant nikon 14-24.. I haven't tried the 12-24 yet.

I've read some reviews and they have said it is much faster on the AF. Optics and build are about the same as the older model, but the front element now has an 82mm thread size with the old one being 77.

I figured that's what you meant. That lens won't be wide enough for me on a D300 (DX format) to spend that much money.

bigboi3 · Jul 23, 2009

Josh220 said:
bigboi3 said:

OOPSIES... i meant nikon 14-24.. I haven't tried the 12-24 yet.

I've read some reviews and they have said it is much faster on the AF. Optics and build are about the same as the older model, but the front element now has an 82mm thread size with the old one being 77.

Click to expand...

I figured that's what you meant. That lens won't be wide enough for me on a D300 (DX format) to spend that much money.

True. If it were me, I'd find a camera store and see if they have any of those lenses to test out. The 10-24 recently just came out did it not?

Josh220 · Jul 23, 2009

bigboi3 said:
Josh220 said:

bigboi3 said:

OOPSIES... i meant nikon 14-24.. I haven't tried the 12-24 yet.

I've read some reviews and they have said it is much faster on the AF. Optics and build are about the same as the older model, but the front element now has an 82mm thread size with the old one being 77.

Click to expand...

I figured that's what you meant. That lens won't be wide enough for me on a D300 (DX format) to spend that much money.

Click to expand...

True. If it were me, I'd find a camera store and see if they have any of those lenses to test out. The 10-24 recently just came out did it not?

Yeah. I tested it today with the Tokina 12-24 and Tamron 10-24, which both were not very good. I just didn't like how they felt, and the Tamron is known to be pretty terrible.

The only lenses I haven't compared it to is the 12-24 Nikon and the 10-20 Sigma.

kundalini · Jul 23, 2009

I will (very likely) never by a varible apeture zoom again. The photozone.de review was pretty good, but still.... variable.

Taken with with the Nikkor 12-24 and D300.

I'm just saying.........

Josh220 · Jul 24, 2009

The 10-20 is the 12-24's replacement so pretty soon the 12-24 will be discontinued.

Josh220 · Jul 24, 2009

If the options were strictly between the Nikon 10-24 and the Nikon 12-24, would the choice still be the 12-24 or does anyone see the 10-24 as being better?

Josh220 · Jul 24, 2009

Bump. Anyone?

bigboi3 · Jul 24, 2009

Josh220 said:
If the options were strictly between the Nikon 10-24 and the Nikon 12-24, would the choice still be the 12-24 or does anyone see the 10-24 as being better?

I would take the 10-24 because of the extra 2mm focal length on the wide end.

shivaswrath · Jul 24, 2009

i agree with the fixed aperture comment - especially at the long end, the difference between f/4 and f/5.6 is substantial. . .personally, I would give the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 a try, and if it's soft, get it "recalibrated" by Sigma; the Tokina 11-16 is an option as well, same situation, usually soft from the factory, so send it back in (and that's f/2.8, so you know by 3.5 you're crystal clear). . .

I have rented a soft version of the 12-24 f/4 nikkor and was put off by it. . .but agreed, if you HAVE sharp copy, awesome!

Sachphotography · Jul 25, 2009

I give this lens a look at. I have heard nothing but good about it.

I have heard nothing but good about it. I want one but I am moving toWashington so I have to save my pennies for that!!! Maybe Later though.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...11_16mm_f_2_8_AT_X_116.html/BI/4915/KBID/5441

Josh220 · Jul 26, 2009

I'll be ordering the Nikon 12-24mm from B&H tomorrow. I am just waiting one more night to see if I am forgetting anything else that I should order at the moment. I'm already getting another Lexar CF card.

Thanks guys.