Nikon 10-24mm vs Nikon 12-24 vs Tokina 11-16mm..

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JonTok, Mar 19, 2010.

  1. JonTok macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    #1
    I want to shoot wide-angle landscapes, buildings and cityscapes, largely early mornings and before/after sunsets + some street scenes and people + I was wondering what people thought of my options. So, if money were not an option, which would you go for:

    New 10-24 mm (f3.5-4.5)
    New Tokina 11-16 mm (f2.8)
    Second hand Nikon 12-24 mm (f4)

    I shoot with a D90. Thanks in advance.
     
  2. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #2
    I would add Tokina's 12-24 mm f/4 to the list. I have one and I like it very much, the built quality is a lot better than that of the Nikkor and from what I hear, it is also optically better. I have no complaints. The 11-16 mm ups the anti and beats any crop sensor ultra-wide angle zoom in terms of image quality, but it has a rather limited zoom range. That's why I opted for the 12-24 mm instead.
     
  3. deep diver macrumors 65816

    deep diver

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #3
    I have not looked at any reviews or tech info for these lenses. Assuming they are all good (which I would expect) then the Tokina would be the lens. You'll be shooting in low/lower light and the extra f-stops will make a difference.
     
  4. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #4
    I can't imagine an 11-16mm focal length range would be particularly useful for the street and people scenes - it's probably too wide, and certainly too limited in range. And with the distortion ultra-wide lenses have, it's not going to be good for buildings.

    Really, it's a dedicated landscape lens. That's fine, as long as the purchaser is aware of that. But as a landscape lens, the f/2.8 is probably not going to matter all that much in my opinion.
     
  5. azboricua macrumors 6502a

    azboricua

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    Arizona
    #5
    What about the Sigma 10-20mm? I have it and I love it!
     
  6. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #6
    If I were buying it now I'd go for the nikon 10-24. The nikkors are a little more expensive but have the best optical quality. I own the 12-24 f/4 from nikon and it is awesome. But I can't justify the cost of upgrading for that 2mm. But if you're starting from scratch I'd go for it unless budget is an issue at which point I'd go for a used 12-24 or one of the third party lenses.

    It's just my preference but I got into the nikon system to use the nikon lenses (becuse of their consistently high quality). So if possible I try to save up a little more and buy the nikon lenses.

    Ruahrc
     
  7. JonTok thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    #7
    Some great, interesting input, thanks. Now, I'm wondering whether the Tokina 11-16mm actually has enough range.
    The Sigma 10-20mm I hadn't considered as I hadn't heard especially good things about it + my only experience of Sigma was an 18-200mm, which I didn't get very good results with.
    Any more takers?
     
  8. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #8
  9. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #9
    Again, have a look at Tokina's 12-24 mm: its focal length range is in my opinion much more versatile.
     
  10. tompon1923 macrumors 6502

    tompon1923

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Location:
    15°35'30.45S 54°31'22.17E
    #10
    The Tokina 12 24 is really the best bang for the buck. I got the previous gen (the AF screwdriver one) on sale for about half the price of the nikon 12 24 and I couldn't be more happy. Tokina's build quality for both the 12-24 and 11-16 is much better as the two nikons.
    I got the 12 24 because I use it at 24mm quite often. Personally I don't mind loosing 1 fstop and 1mm for a bigger range. I've made great handheld shots at 12mm f/4 on only 1/2 exposure time. It's really a personal preference but if you like shooting street scenes, the 24mm can be quite useful.
     
  11. mattyb240 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    #11
    Can't expect amazing results from a super zoom;)
     
  12. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #12
    this is a great focal length so well worth considering but don't be put off the sigma 10-20mm, Ive got one, just try it first there are some out there that are lacking in sharpness, but good ones far outweight these :)
     
  13. JonTok thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    #13
    Mmm, well, if it's to be 12-24mm, would anyone suggest a second hand Nikon 12-24? My regular place has them for $550 but they often can't tell me exactly how old they are.
    I'll certainly take a look at the Sigma 10-20mm too.
     
  14. deep diver macrumors 65816

    deep diver

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #14
    In the end, your best bet might be to rent (or borrow if you can) these lenses and do some shooting before deciding.
     
  15. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #15
    I'll also recommend the Tokina 12-24 f/4. It's a mighty fine bit of glass, period. Very sharp, very sturdy build, and it functions like a Nikon lens because it's focus and zoom action is the same direction as your Nikkor lenses (opposite from Canon.) But mainly I've been very favorably impressed with the color capture and detail in my shots taken with this lens. The range from 12-24 is very useful, compared to the 11-16. The 11-16 was designed using the basic optical formula of the 12-24 and both lenses are very similar in overall appearance and construction. If you go for the original screw drive version you'll save about $100, and in my opinion it will be more reliable due to not having an internal focus motor. Clean used ones are going for $300-325.
     
  16. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #16
    Would you recommend the Tokina 12-24 as a traveling lens?

    I'm deciding what lens to buy to replace the 18-55 kit lens. And I'm thinking that I might buy this lens and still take the 18-55 when in need of something with more range. I'll mostly shoot architecture.
     
  17. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #17
    ^^ Yes, the 12-24 Tokina would be a great travel lens for architecture, and the 24mm long end makes it much more useful overall than a 16mm or 20mm long end-- but having said that, you definitely will want another lens to cover more 'normal' focal lengths as well. So, definitely keep the kit 18-55 with you. Some days you may find it's all you need.
     
  18. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #18
    Yes, if you're mostly using wide-angle focal lengths, then yes. I've used my 12-24 mm almost exclusively for a two-week trip (also to get used to the focal length). I supplemented that with a 50 mm f/1.8 -- another lens I highly recommend. Nowadays I'd also add my 30 mm Sigma, though.

    With the 12-24 mm + 50 mm combo should be fine if your focus is on wide-angle photography.
     
  19. funkboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Location:
    elsewhere
    #19
    Disclaimer: I shoot a lot of travel & landscapes on a Canon 40D. Their 24-105L is my "main" lens. Canon's reputation for not-so-great wide angles led me to look elsewhere several years ago before they got their act together.

    I bought the Tokina 12-24 f/4 when it came out. When Tokina released the 11-16 f/2.8 version, I upgraded. Note that in Canon mount both these lenses use a built-in micromotor, but in Nikon mount I'm not sure if they made a screwdriver version of the 11-16 but I'm pretty certain that the 12-24 is available with both AF styles (the screwdriver version certainly being cheaper & perhaps available used).

    Though the extra length of the 12-24 was nice as it gave something approaching "normal" focal length, the extra f-stop & resolving power at wider apertures of the 11-16 have been well worth the trade-off, & the extra mm on the wide side makes it a little more fun. I do miss the ability to use the 24mm end as a more-or-less "normal" length though; the 11-16 really is a dedicated ultrawide whereas the 12-24 is more versatile. Optically the 12-24 is quite nice once you stop it down to at least f/5.6, but the 11-16 really starts to shine around f/3.2-f/3.5 and suffers less from low-contrast flare when close to wide open.

    You don't mention what lenses you already have for your D90, but for me the following is clear:

    - If you've got an APS-C "standard" zoom like Nikon's 16-85 VR, then you'll probably be most satisfied with the fast aperture & wider coverage of the 11-16 f/2.8.

    - If you've got a full-frame "standard" zoom like the 24-120 VR then you may be happier with the extended versatility of the 12-24 f/4 that better complements your main lens, unless you prioritize low-light ability over practicality.

    ...that's my €0.02...
     
  20. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #20
    At that price, get the Nikkor. Age doesn't matter- just test it for focus and aperture and you'll be set.

    Paul
     
  21. Ruahrc macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #21
    If you're going to shoot architecture, pay close attention to the distortion characteristics of these lenses. Many wide angles have some barrel distortion which if too severe will distract from architecture shots because there are (typically) many straight lines in buildings. I would make having a good distortion characteristic a priority in your search.

    Yes, you can fix it in software but you lose a small bit of viewing angle, and a little bit of resolution as the image is distorted from its native pixels into the new shape. Better to capture a straight image from the start if possible.

    Ruahrc

    P.S., it's small beans, but if you check the serial # of any 12-24, there were apparently two versions made. Starting in 2006 they shaved off 20g of weight from the lens and the newer build has serial No. 300001+. I have never heard of a difference in IQ and the weight difference is small, but if you had the choice...
    http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html#DX
     

Share This Page