Tokina wide angle lens.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by igmolinav, Dec 8, 2009.

  1. igmolinav macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #1
    Hi,

    The following lens, to be used with a Nikon D50, can be an alternative to other more expensive lenses:
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/360350-REG/Tokina_ATX124AFPRON_12_24mm_f_4_AT_X_124AF.html

    The other two alternative lenses are the following, from the same brand name, but more expensive:

    12-24 mm. :
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...124DXIIN_12_24mm_f_4_AT_X_124AF.html#features

    11-16 mm. f/2.8 :
    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554036-REG/Tokina_ATX116PRODXN_11_16mm_f_2_8_AT_X_116.html

    My questions are the following:

    Compared to the other two lenses, would you buy it ??

    Thank you, very kind regards,

    igmolinav.
     
  2. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #2
    Well, they're two different focal lengths, so first you should decide if you need the extra width or zoom. The newer of the 12-24s will AF with the low-end Nikon bodies- that's not a D50 issue, but it may be a future camera issue and/or resale issue, it'll probably focus marginally faster too, though on a wide angle that's generally not an issue- so you have to decide if it's worth it to you to spend ~$1 month over the life of the lens to be able to purchase a low-end body when the D50 gives up the ghost or to be able to sell the lens to folks who own a D40/D40x/D60/D5000... If you tire of it. You also have to figure out if you need f/2.8 or not- as that's a big difference in light gathering. If you're just going to shoot landscapes, it's probably not a big deal, but if you're going to shoot interior architecture it's a huge difference.
     
  3. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #3
    If I recall, most reviews put the 12-24 as sharper wide open and having better control of CA than the 11-16 is at f/2.8. Of course if you stop the 11-16 down to f/4 they're much more comparable.

    Personally I would buy the 12-24 (I bought the Canon 10-22 actually), but that's because I didn't find myself wanting an UWA while inside and without the luxury or ability to use a tripod. If you want to shoot at high shutter speeds indoors without support, you're going to want the faster lens as Compuwar mentioned. Otherwise the 12-24 wins in my mind.

    Also, have you rented a UWA lens before to see if you even like the focal length? What is it that you want to shoot with it?
     
  4. Artful Dodger macrumors 68020

    Artful Dodger

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Location:
    In a false sense of reality...My Mind!
    #4
    Same camera as you own and the 11-16 is on my Xmas list. While I won't have the D50 forever the lens has some nice pics from what I've seen however it's just always out of stock. Good luck and enjoy either one when you get it :)
     
  5. seedster2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #5
    I used to have the tokina 12-24 when I was on DX. It really is a great lens for the money. I bought mine used from Adorama and it not for my move to FX I would still be using it for landscapes. I hear good things about the 11-16 but it is SUPER wide and harder to get a hold of.
     
  6. ronjon10 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2009
    #6
    I have the Tokina 11-16. It's a very nice lens. Some of the pictures turn out a little soft which I think is user error as it also produces some brilliant shots for me.

    I've used it at 2.8, but that's pretty rare. I normally shoot it at 5.6 which gives huge depth of field at those wide angles.

    I haven't used the others, but I do recommend this lens if you want something this wide.

    Here's a night shot of a building taken at 11mm f8. The image was taken as a jpg and this image is unedited other than compressed for size by the smugmug site. I think it's nice and sharp, especially as I haven't put it through any post process sharpening.

    http://ronjon.smugmug.com/Assignmen...Shots/1a4JohnsonRon011/704430527_fjwCS-X2.jpg
     
  7. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #7
    I own the 12-24 mm, it is an amazing lens: it feels much more solid than Nikon's 12-24 mm (the Nikon is mostly plastic while Tokina uses much more metal) and the IQ is very, very good. Since your D50 does have an AF motor, you can go for the cheaper variant. The more expensive mark II adds a new coating of the front element that is supposed to help protect the lens against drizzle and a focus motor. 24 mm corresponds to 36 mm on full frame, a focal length that is actually useful for `normal' photography.

    The 11-16 mm is optically even better in some respects (the sharpest UW zoom for crop sensors on the market bar none), but I decided against it, because it really is a one-trick pony: all it does (really well) is ultrawide angle photography. You can also use the 12-24 mm for street photography and more general purpose stuff.
     
  8. RobLS macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    #8
    I own a D300 and the 11-16 for about 8 months now. I originally waited months for this to get back in stock to get this and love it. To some people it is a little tougher to use, but for those who are fine with working at wider angles, its amazing. It all depends at what you want really, dif. results with the 12-24 than the 11-16.
     
  9. Pikemann Urge macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Location:
    melbourne.au
    #9
    FWIW you can use DX zooms on FX/35mm cameras. You just can't use the wider end of the range. The 11-16mm, which I have, can be used on FX/35 cameras from the 14mm setting. And in fact it's so wide at 16mm that you'd be happy enough keeping it at 16mm. That way you don't have to think about safety margins.
     
  10. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #10
    I think it's really all about the f/2.8 vs the f/4.0 - and at super wide angles how much difference does it make in getting sharp images? Are you going to be shooting a lot in low light? If so, spend the extra $200 for the 11-16, otherwise I highly recommend the 12-24 (original version.) There's no built-in AF motor to break in the lens, which to me makes it even more bulletproof. It's built like a pro Nikon lens down to the crinkle finish, it's sharp even wide open, extremely sharp stopped down. Only issue is flare in direct sun - which once you know the lens you can pretty easily work around. Excellent color and contrast in this lens for general purposes, and actually the 12-24mm range is useful. 12mm (18mm equivalent) is serious wide-angle, despite all the folks who want that extra 2mm. If you haven't used super-wide angles, you'll have to get used to it, and learn how to frame your shots in new ways... which is the fun and creative part of the wide-angle stuff. But, as mentioned, the 24 (36mm equivalent) long end is actually a nice, useful focal length that the 11-16 lacks. And, on a full-frame body the 12-24 is useful from 17-24mm, which makes it a very usable lens for superwide on FX, too.

    Hope this helps.
     
  11. gnd macrumors 6502a

    gnd

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Location:
    At my cat's house
    #11
    The f4 version of this Tokina lens is also being sold as a SMC Pentax-DA 12-24mm F4 ED AL [IF] lens. Dunno if it's exactly the same down to the last screw, but Tokina is the maker of this Pentax lens. This is probably the reason why this is one of the only Tokina lenses not available in Pentax mount.
    Just thought I'd add this little bit ...
     

Share This Page