Nikon 12-24 vs Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8

Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
25
Location
San Jose, CA
I know somebody who is selling a Nikon 12-24 f4 DX ED in like new condition for $800. I like the fact I could get Tokina's new 11-16mm f/2.8 for much less new than a used Nikkor. I like the Tokina is wider and faster. I like the Nikon is longer when I don't want to be THAT wide. I like that the Nikon is a Nikon. How good are Tokinas anyway?

This would be going on a D2Hs. Any comments? Your opinions are most appreciated!

~Steve Sloan
San Jose
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
25
Location
San Jose, CA
I gotta admit

Maybe the person who is selling the 12-24 IS upgrading. I wonder if the new lens is bringing the value of the Nikon lens down. Maybe, $800 would be too much?

~Steve
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
929
Location
Texas
Well, if you go with the 11-16 and add a 17-xx or 18-xx you cover the 12-24 range and have faster glass at the wide end and less expense initially.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
Personally, I don't feel a need for f/2.8 on a super wide angle lens. And as far as range goes, I like the possibilites for creative distortion at 12mm...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


but also like that I can use the 24mm end for normal stuff.

View attachment 216157

And if 12mm isn't wide enough for your landscapes, 11mm isn't going to solve your problem. Jmho.

View attachment 216158
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
3,625
Location
Houston, TX
$800 is IMHO too much to pay for a used Nikkor 12-24. That lens has always been overpriced compared to the competition, and that doesn't seem like much of a discount from the new-in-box price considering you'll have no warranty. If the 11-16 range will suit you, I think the new Tokina would be a fine choice (I've heard nothing but positive reviews about that lens so far). If you want a bit more range consider the Tokina 12-24 which sells for under $500 new and is just as good as the Nikkor.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
5,284
Location
New Mexico
Hmmmm, don't remember my Tokina ever having IQ like this. :biggrin: D300 Nikkor 12-24 f4


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
It's more of a difference than you might think, 5% wider FOV.

Yup. My point precisely. That's not enough to make a significant difference in a scape. And based on my own experience, I don't agree that the Tokina 12-24 is just as good as the Nikkor. How much of a premium you're willing to pay for a small advantage in image quality is another issue.

That lens has always been overpriced compared to the competition,
Hold on, now, when Nikon introduced the 12-24, there was no competition. It was the first of its breed, and it's still the best of the breed. Imho, of course :wink:.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,546
Location
Denmark
I have owned the Nikon 12-24 and I wanted it to be sharper at the wide end, than it was (got it calibrated and it helped some, but not enough in my opinion - exept for 24mm).

Now I have the Tokina 11-16 (the only non-Nikon-lens i have) and it is sharper than the Nikon 12-24.

More flare/ghosting than the Nikon.

The Nikon is more versatile - goes to 24 mm.

So it depends: Do you want it for the very wide end ? (11-16 is not much from a zoom - it is nearly a prime).

I am happy with the lens - the only drawback is the flare/ghosting (but I have lenses, that is worse) and some CA, but Nikon also have the CA - I think in the same amount.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
3,625
Location
Houston, TX
Yup. My point precisely. That's not enough to make a significant difference in a scape.
Whether that 5% extra FOV matters for your shooting is your call. My point was the shorter the focal lengths you're comparing, the more difference 1mm makes so saying "it's just one mm" doesn't really tell the whole story.

And based on my own experience, I don't agree that the Tokina 12-24 is just as good as the Nikkor. How much of a premium you're willing to pay for a small advantage in image quality is another issue.
It's not about 'willing to pay'. I've gladly purchased Nikkors far more expensive than the 12-24. I just don't think the 12-24 delivered $900+ worth of optical performance, especially compared to the alternatives.

Hold on, now, when Nikon introduced the 12-24, there was no competition. It was the first of its breed, and it's still the best of the breed. Imho, of course.
Ok if you want to split hairs, the fact that its build quality was on the level of a $300 kit lens (right down to the chintzy reversed zoom/focus rings) made the Nikkor over-priced on its initial release; once the Tokina was released it became over-priced compared to the competition. :wink:

I wouldn't knock the extra stop on the f/2.8 as useless on a super-wide. If you've ever tried focusing and composing and f/4 lens while the sun is well below the horizon (especially with a CPL), an extra stop of light can be pretty useful. The biggest reason I haven't traded my 12-24 for a 11-16 yet is because I'm hoping Nikon will announce a D3x and 17-35 II this year.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
1,235
Location
Hong Kong, China
I had the 11-16 for two weeks.

I bought it for my trip to the US. I had traveled from San Francisco to Yosemite, Red Wood Forest, Mount Hood, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Zion, Grand Canyon, Vegas and now I am in Palm Springs.

I haven't gone through my photos carefully yet, but my initial impression is that it is quite a good lens. Nice color, good contrast and really sharp. CA is visible though. I think it is sharper than the 12-24 at F4. At F8 they are about the same.

The problem with this lens is really the limited zoom range. I think I was using my 17-35 maybe 85% of the times. I think if you want one super wide zoom the 12-24 is a better choice.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
35
Location
Fairfax, VA
I had the 11-16 for two weeks.

I bought it for my trip to the US. I had traveled from San Francisco to Yosemite, Red Wood Forest, Mount Hood, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Zion, Grand Canyon, Vegas and now I am in Palm Springs.

I haven't gone through my photos carefully yet, but my initial impression is that it is quite a good lens. Nice color, good contrast and really sharp. CA is visible though. I think it is sharper than the 12-24 at F4. At F8 they are about the same.

The problem with this lens is really the limited zoom range. I think I was using my 17-35 maybe 85% of the times. I think if you want one super wide zoom the 12-24 is a better choice.
I agree with Tim concerning the zoom range; and that's why I chose to get a Tokina 12-24 f4 for use on my D2h. I just couldn't justify the extra price of the Nikon 12-24 for the amount that I use wide-angle.
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
owned a perfect sample of the tokina 12-24 and loved it. ironic it's easier to get a good sample of this lens verses the nikon. and as far as build goes it schmokes the nikon. however, if u land on a good sample of the nikon you'll find it's IQ is better than the tokina,,,what can i say? it's got that MAGIC!

;-)))
 
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
811
Location
San Diego CA
as to the OP's original question, I would go with "a" 12-24 personaly. the tokina 12-24 hardly leaves my camera. its my do everything lens. mostly indoors stuff. but for just about everything. 12-24 and a decent tele and I'm set.

the 11-16 would basicly be a wide only. 16-24 is a pretty big difference. but it depends on what you want to do with it. for indoors and wedding work the F2.8 could be very important.

I thought about selling the 12-24 and getting the 11-16 breifly. but then when I thought about it. I almost never try to zoom past 12 and I try to zoom past 24 all the time. so being stuck at 16 would be extremly limiting for me.
 
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
9,081
Location
Oregon
I'd go for the Nikkor, the range is from really wide to almost normal ( I used a 35mm as my normal lens for film). Don't worry about the build, heavy doesn't mean better and the Nikkor has been a working lens for about 10 years. I have yet to see a post "my Nikkor 12-24 fell apart"....price wise the Tokina is a very nice lens for a great price.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
260
Location
LI, NY
Right now I'm actually a little tempted by the idea of replacing the 12-24 with an 11-16/2.8 plus a Zeiss 18/3.5...
I've thought of that (minus the Zeiss) but I'm glad no one bit on my offers to sell the Nikkor for $700 on here. After considering how often I'd actually need 2.8 and not being able to hit 24mm, I'm keeping the Nikkor. If you don't own a 12-24 already, the 11-16 is definitely an easier buy to consider.

How much does it cost to have your lens re-calibrated by Nikon?
 
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
25
Location
San Jose, CA
After seeing these posts I'm leaning for a 12-24 Nikon. A 35mm is a nice equivalent to have and I don't like changing lenses too often due to dust.

I have to decide if the $800 price is fair. I'm trying it on my camera tomorrow.

~Stheve
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom