Nikon 12-24mm vs....

Discussion in 'Nikon Lenses' started by rmstudios, Apr 3, 2012.

  1. rmstudios

    rmstudios TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Hello friends, I need your experience between Nikon 12-24mm VS Tokina 12-24mm. I would like to use it on my D7k for landscape. The only reason why I don't buy Nikon is the price, I am looking for used Nikon (600) and Tokina (350). I almost bought Tokina, but would like your opinions first. I will not consider any other lenses. Thank you.


     
  2. 2WheelPhoto

    2WheelPhoto TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,844
    Likes Received:
    994
    Location:
    Tampa
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Optical and build quality.

    And resale value, Nikon > Tokina.
     
  3. rmstudios

    rmstudios TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Yes, resale value of Nikon is much better, but optically is it really better?
     
  4. Balmiesgirl

    Balmiesgirl TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    4
    I have been shooting Nikon for many years. I have tried lots of different lenses.... When comparing I usually end up choosing Nikon (2.8 or faster) glass. My second choice would be sigma .... They are well built, durable and have nice optical quality. I haven't had a lot of luck with tamron or tokina. Just my 2 cents :)
     
  5. groan

    groan TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I have the sigma 10-20 and LOVE it. ONly drawback is it's higher f-stop. Starts at 4 I think. Until I can afford a 2.8 it is performing well.
     
  6. rmstudios

    rmstudios TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thank you, I would love to go with Nikon, but it is 300 more. Concerning Sigma, I don't care about it, I had a telephoto Sigma before glad i sold it.
     
  7. Balmiesgirl

    Balmiesgirl TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    4
    Oh, I haven't had anything except fast sigmas (2.8 or faster). I haven't experienced any difficulties with them. They have been very close to the quality of the nikons I replaced them with. I did have to return a 17-70 2.8 sigma because it had back focusing issues. The replacement served me very well for years, until I switched to full frame and had to pass it down to my daughter. I also had a 70-200 2.8 that did a very good job and was about half the price of the Nikon one I replaced it with.
    But I have no experience with sigma's lower end lenses.
    As far as tokina.... I didn't like the build more than anything... Lightweight which can be convenient, but the zooms I tried had Distortion and softness on both ends and had a tendency to drift if not absolutely level on the tripod.
    Tamron I have had countless focus issues. Slow.... Clunky.... Not good luck at all for me!
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2012
  8. zamanakhan

    zamanakhan TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    29
    i would take the tokina 12-24, simply because tokina is known for making some of the best 3rd party lenses. i've gotta sigma 10-20 and along with a 35 1.8 it is what stays on my camera 80-90% of the time. The problem i have with the sigma is that, wide open its a dog. I dont think of my sigma as a 4.5-5.6 instead i think of it as 8-11.

    If you were picking between the 11-16 vs 12-24, than i think i would have more of a dilema. The problem is the 2.8 would be GREAT for indoor churches and just shots indoors BUT it would be awful for a quick portrait. At 24mm or even at 20, composed properly people are not TOO distorted but at 16mm your subject ends up having a massive nose or HUGE shoulders and arms, not pleasing for people, the 12-24 range is better walk around than the 11-16.
     
  9. Balmiesgirl

    Balmiesgirl TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    4
    Most lenses are at their best 1-2 stops off from their max aperture. Third party lenses seem to exaggerate this :). With my Nikon lenses it's less but at two grand a pop they better perform better!!!!
    I have spent a fortune on low quality glass over my life time. If I could do it over I would be patient, save up and get great glass in the first place. The 3rd party lenses rarely resell at good prices when you are ready to upgrade.
     
  10. rmstudios

    rmstudios TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2011
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thank you guys for your thoughts. Adios.
     
  11. KmH

    KmH In memoriam Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,401
    Likes Received:
    5,696
    Location:
    Iowa
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Yes. The Nikon lens is really better. In actual practice, the Nikon 12-24 is a lot better, particularly at delivering a flatter field of view.

    It might be worth your while to learn how to interpret a lens MTF (modulation transfer function) chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTF_chart

    Tokina lenses are infamous for their poorly corrected chromatic aberration.
     
  12. Balmiesgirl

    Balmiesgirl TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    4


    :) I agree!! ^^
     

Share This Page