Nikon 10-24 and 12-24 compared...

Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
682
Location
Colorado, USA
I'm a happy 12-24 owner. I have the opportunity to sell it and pick up a refurbished 10-24 (direct from Nikon USA) for more or less the same price.
Other than the wider wide end of the 10-24 and the constant f/4 of the 12-24, is there much of a difference between the 2 lenses? I've never had the 10-24 in my hands, but I believe it's lighter-weight, and maybe a bit more plasticky? Is the 12-24 a better built lens? Distortion differences between the 2?
Should I want the 10-24, or should I stay happy with my 12-24?
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
1,370
Location
Canada
I looked at these two lenses, and went with Tokina 11-16/2.8. Couldn't be happier.
 
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
9,081
Location
Oregon
Every time I used my 12-24 I just love the results. Constant f4 means a lot to me as does the flair resistance. I'd change only if I shot most of my images at the widest setting and found that 12mm was not wide enough.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
49
Location
Arizona
I just received my 12-24 yesterday and haven't had a chance to use it yet. When I was trying to decide this same question myself I felt that the 12mm would accomplish everything that I needed. Also I've heard/read that the build quality was much better on the 12-24.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
320
Location
Granite Bay, CA
I've never shot the 10-24, myself. SLRGear has reviews of both lenses, and in the 10-24 review has this to say about differences between the two:

"Still in Nikon's lineup, the decision between the 12-24mm and the 10-24mm is a tough one. It's a close one to call for sharpness and I'd say the 12-24mm is marginally sharper, I don't think you'd see the difference in practice. CA is marginally better at 12mm on the 10-24mm. Distortion is about the same, and corner shading is marginally better on the 12-24mm. The only other difference is that the 12-24mm employs a constant ƒ/4 aperture as well as a constant lens size, making it perhaps more of a ''pro''-quality lens. They both take 77mm filters, and cost about the same."
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
302
Location
Central US
Shot both, and I like the 10-24mm better because 1) the purpose is super-wide which the 10-24wins easily by default and 2) at 12mm the 10-24 produces better results than 12-24.

At other lengths, the 12-24mm generally seems to be better.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,091
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
My progression was Tokina 12-24 -> Sigma 10-20 -> Nikon 10-24...

All lenses were fine optically, but when I had the Tokina I always wanted to go wider, and when I had the Sigma I was not happy with 20mm at the long end - was switching lenses too often...

I'm a happy camper now with the 10-24 - this lens has the ideal zoom range for me at the super wide end :smile:

So if you miss the extra 2mm at the wide end, give the 10-24 a try!

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
682
Location
Colorado, USA
I looked at these two lenses, and went with Tokina 11-16/2.8. Couldn't be happier.
I looked at the Tokina before I got the 12-24, but thought it would leave a pretty big gap in my kit. My typical walkaround kit is the wide zoom and a prime, usually a 50, or sometimes the wide zoom and 2 primes, usually a 35 and an 85.
With the 12-24 as my "normal" lens, I find I use it about half the time at 12 and the other half at 24. I'd really miss the 24 end.
 
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
6,358
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado
My experience is opposite to that of a couple of earlier replies. I owned the 12-24 and shot a 10-24 that I borrowed from a shooting buddy for about a month. In my use of the lenses the 12-24 was better than the 10-24 in almost every way. The most significant differences were that the12-24 had better corner sharpness especially at wider apertures and had better contrast and color. I freely admit that this is just one data point and the results could be skewed by extremes in sample variation.

I no longer own either since I gave my D300 to my son. However, if I ever get another DX body, the 12-24 will be high on my list of lenses to (re)acquire.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
1,370
Location
Canada
I looked at the Tokina before I got the 12-24, but thought it would leave a pretty big gap in my kit. My typical walkaround kit is the wide zoom and a prime, usually a 50, or sometimes the wide zoom and 2 primes, usually a 35 and an 85.
With the 12-24 as my "normal" lens, I find I use it about half the time at 12 and the other half at 24. I'd really miss the 24 end.
That was a concern originally, but I managed by stitching images from the 35, or just foot-zooming. The 35 is my go-to mid-range lens. I should mention that I never used 10-24 or 12-24 beyond just playing with them at the store, so I can only speak for the 11-16. Many review/test sites seem to agree that this lens is better than Nikon's 12-24.....at least if you don't specifically need the 24mm.

The only downside of the Tokina is that it has severe cut-off on full frame.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
75
Location
Cali
I went from the 1224 to the 1024 as soon as the latter came out and have been completely satisfied. Picky picky picky as I am, all I notice is the newer lens goes wider and is faster there as well.
 
Top Bottom