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

[ssloansjca]

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

 

[Brodman]

I'm interested in this also. I have the 12-24, but always looking to upgrade.:biggrin:

 

[ssloansjca]

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

 

[LDB415]

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.

 

[Uncle Frank]

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

 

[JeffKohn]

$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.

 

[JeffKohn]

11mm isn't going to solve your problem.

It's more of a difference than you might think, 5% wider FOV.

 

[trenchmonkey]

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)

 

[Uncle Frank]

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:.

 

[Steiner]

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.

 

[JeffKohn]

Hmmmm, don't remember my Tokina ever having IQ like this. D300 Nikkor 12-24 f4

It's a nice picture, but let's be realistic - processed web JPEG's don't tell anything at all about lens quality.

 

[JeffKohn]

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.

 

[TimK]

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.

 

[Gnarl]

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.

 

[Nuteshack]

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!

;-)))

 

[slappomatt]

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.

 

[JeffKohn]

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...

 

[Jeff Lee]

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.

 

[Faceman]

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?

 

[ssloansjca]

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