Nikon 12-24mm vs....

rmstudios

TPF Noob!
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
64
Reaction score
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.
 
Optical and build quality.

And resale value, Nikon > Tokina.
 
2WheelPhoto said:
Optical and build quality.

And resale value, Nikon > Tokina.

Yes, resale value of Nikon is much better, but optically is it really better?
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
Balmiesgirl said:
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 :)

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.
 
rmstudios said:
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.

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:
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.
 
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.
 
Thank you guys for your thoughts. Adios.
 
2WheelPhoto said:
Optical and build quality.

And resale value, Nikon > Tokina.
No vs to it. How about or instead.

Yes, resale value of Nikon is much better, but optically is it really better?
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.
 
KmH said:
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.

:) I agree!! ^^
 
KmH said:
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.

Thank you.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top