Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX? GOOD BUY?

[pixmedic1]

So its a prop lens? For only certain objects? Okay that actually helps me a lot! What would you suggest for a good walk around lens?

Are you familiar with Ken Rockwell? DX Dream Team Lenses

wow...just, wow.

 

[greybeard37 9]

After reading your initial post again, I think you would be happier with the 18-200.

 

[ATVrider43]

Thanks that helped a lot actually!

 

[slow231]

even if you knew NOTHING about photography or lenses, wouldn't the different #'s on the two lenses be a clue that they're totally different? I'm all for helping new people, but jesus christ. from the initial comparison of two totally different lenses (aside from maybe price?), to the 300% breakdown of shooting style (which is also both outside and inside), and now finally to the ken rockwell reference... this thread is all over the place except anywhere that can be taken seriously.

but as to not only add to the nonsense myself. it sounds like the 18-200 would be a better bet for you.

 

[ATVrider43]

oh

 

[ATVrider43]

No one said anything about comparing the two lol...you came up with that all on your own.

 

[o hey tyler]

No why do you dislike it? Reasons please because I've been advised to get that one.../QUOTE]

Reasons why not to get it: because it's not a great lens. It's a super zoom lens covering a wide focal range. Sacrifices were made in IQ when engineering this lens. Sure it's probably good for most average consumers to screw around with. But nothing I would recommend to anyone. Ever.

You might as well just get an 18-105 or a straight 50/1.8. The tokina lens is entirely different in the way it renders space. Very elongated scenes due to the wideness. As someone said they took "all kinds of shots" with their UWA lens, that's just silly. You're not going to buy an UWA to do macro or portrait work, as the post seemed to allude to.

 

[ATVrider43]

No why do you dislike it? Reasons please because I've been advised to get that one.../QUOTE]

Reasons why not to get it: because it's not a great lens. It's a super zoom lens covering a wide focal range. Sacrifices were made in IQ when engineering this lens. Sure it's probably good for most average consumers to screw around with. But nothing I would recommend to anyone. Ever.

You might as well just get an 18-105 or a straight 50/1.8. The tokina lens is entirely different in the way it renders space. Very elongated scenes due to the wideness. As someone said they took "all kinds of shots" with their UWA lens, that's just silly. You're not going to buy an UWA to do macro or portrait work, as the post seemed to allude to.

Hmm... Okay very helpful. I am planning on getting the 50 1.8 or 35 1.8 haven't quiet decided yet. UM what would you recommend as an every day lens like the 18-105? That is my deal here something to replace the kit lens.

 

[o hey tyler]

If you're looking to upgrade that zoom range, look for a 17-50 f/2.8. I am pretty sure tamron makes one that is highly regarded.

 

[ATVrider43]

Okay thanks!

 

[Solarflare]

Um.

Why is the Ken Rockwell reference that bad ?

Or is it now a religious belief of this forum everything Ken Rockwell writes is always bad ?

From other forums, I know many people actually dont think too badly about his lens reviews.

His advice "all most people need is one wide and one long zoom, and maybe a prime for low light" is pretty much what I would still say, too.

 

[o hey tyler]

Um.

Why is the Ken Rockwell reference that bad ?

Or is it now a religious belief of this forum everything Ken Rockwell writes is always bad ?

From other forums, I know many people actually dont think too badly about his lens reviews.

Ken Rockwell is kind of an idiot, IMO. I have a feeling that he writes his reviews and blogposts with the intention of rustling some jimmies. For example he suggested that the 18-200mm was "the only lens you need."

Sure, if you can sift through the walls of text that are rife with BS, he has some good real world observations of lenses and cameras. But for the legwork of surfing through the tidal wave of the aforementioned BS, I'd rather go to dpreview where they lay the facts out and keep it OG.

You may know many people who don't think his reviews are bad. Then again, there are plenty of people who think Smirnoff makes good beer, McDonald's makes a good sandwich, and Sony makes a good camera, etc.

 

[slow231]

Um.

Why is the Ken Rockwell reference that bad ?

Or is it now a religious belief of this forum everything Ken Rockwell writes is always bad ?

From other forums, I know many people actually dont think too badly about his lens reviews.

His advice "all most people need is one wide and one long zoom, and maybe a prime for low light" is pretty much what I would still say, too.

his "dream team" lists are garbage imo. they're filled with a lot of compromises and qualifiers with multiple references and links to all kinds of different stuff. this makes these neither "dreams" nor even "teams" since he ends up listing a whole bunch of options anyways.

No one said anything about comparing the two lol...you came up with that all on your own.

...
Would this lens be better than the nikon 18-200?
...

looks like you're comparing them to me.