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

[TetonTom]

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?

 

[KMud]

Ken Rockwell has a nice comparison between the 10-24 and 12-24. I personally am going to get a 10-24 as it's better for IR (not part of uncle Ken's speil).

 

[Ryan_T]

I looked at these two lenses, and went with Tokina 11-16/2.8. Couldn't be happier.

 

[Jeff Lee]

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.

 

[scout1]

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.

 

[freundez]

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."

 

[hornagain]

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.

 

[mneary]

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

 

[TetonTom]

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.

 

[bpdougd]

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.

 

[Ryan_T]

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.

 

[nyannyan]

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.