Nikon vs Tokina?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by j_inalaska, Jun 3, 2007.

  1. I am needing a super wide lens for shooting landscapes up the coast of California. Anyone have an opinion on the Nikon 12-24mm vs the Tokina?

    I am a Nikon everything girl ... well mostly, and it pains me to even think about putting something other than Nikon on my D200. However, there is something about that price difference that keeps me dragging my feet in this purchase. I have heard many good things about the Tokina. If the two lens were both identical, I think I would know which way to go. But are they?

    Has anyone had the experience using both??

    Thanks in advance.

    Jen
     
  2. haze2

    haze2

    780
    Mar 18, 2007
    Phoenix, AZ
    I'm looking forward to the responses to this question also. I'm looking at the Nikon and Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20. I got to shoot the Tokina about 3 weeks ago but haven't shot the other two. I would love to see some pictures along with the opinions.
     
  3. Jen, I haven't used both, but I did own a Nikon 12-24 and was VERY impressed with it. I chose the Nikon over the Tokina mainly because I needed the lens during presentations and shows, and I wanted the silent AF-S motor. I will also admit that I prefer to use only Nikon lenses. :) Will say that my Nikon 12-24 was extremely sharp, even at the edges, which is something that surprised me, based on what I've read about it.
     
  4. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    No point in paying extra for the Nikon when the Tokina has very similar IQ for much less. I only got the Nikon because I got a great deal for it, otherwise I would've been all over the Tokina. The Tokina is even built better than the Nikon.
     
  5. Dan Berg

    Dan Berg

    30
    Mar 29, 2007
    Mohnton,Pa.
    I don't consider it paying more for the Nikon. Its what they cost. I personally have not considered any of the 3rd party lenses. Buy the best you can afford. Nikon is a premium product with very fair pricing.
    Dan Berg

    All Nikon fleet - D2Xs D200(2) 10.5,12-24,17-55,18-200vr, 70-200vr,200-400vr
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2007
  6. Cope

    Cope

    Apr 5, 2007
    Houston, Texas
    I don't have this lens, but it is one of two I would like to own. From the outside looking in, the user reviews are stacked in favor of the Tokina. This is not just that is as good as the Nikon for less, I have seen may who have owned and shot with both claiming the Tokina is better.
     
  7. JeffKohn

    JeffKohn

    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    I'm normally a Nikkor guy, but I ended up with both 12-24's in my possession and after evaluating them I decided to keep the Tokina. Not because it was cheaper, but because I felt it was the better lens.
     
  8. mematsu

    mematsu

    May 2, 2007
    los angeles
    The tokina

    Very nice lens. I am a little sad as I just sold mine(great resale value). I just didn't use it enough. I bet the Nikon is really nice too.
     
  9. Hmm... how about Zeiss? That's third party too - but even more expensive. :biggrin:
     
  10. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    Personally, I think the RRP on the 12-24 (£750) and 18-200 (£549) is absurd compared to what you can get for the money, not very fair at all, although some lenses are very well priced – the 300mm f/4 is an incredible lens for the money, and the 70-300VR is very good value (£330).
     
  11. Jan, I am less credentialed than your other respondents but my bag is full of Nikon gear except for the Tokina 12-24. I was able to test both before buying the Tokina and could not find differentiation in the results. Bottomline: The Tokina is a fabulous lens! I do not think that you can make a mistake in your selection. Enjoy....and with my best,
     
  12. sypher

    sypher

    May 24, 2006
    Cougar Country
    Jen,
    If you do a search here on the cafe you will find that this topic has been discussed many times. Here is a review on these two lenses, and a couple other options. Hope this helps:)
     
  13. This is a very frequently discussed topic. In light of the reviews and comments here, and because I didn't expect to use it as much as other lenses, I narrowed the choice to the Tokina and the Sigma. I ordered both, did some quick tests side by side, and kept the Tokina. It seemed to have better edge to edge sharpness and superior color rendition. That said, I've seen some wonderful shots with the Sigma so I don't think you can go wrong with any of them.
     
  14. wbeem

    wbeem

    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem
    This Tokina is my only non-Nikon glass, and I don't mind it a bit. Considering the price difference, it's a no-brainer. Get the Tokina and don't worry about hurting Nikon's feelings.
     
  15. I too was torn between the two when deciding. I researched it EXTENSIVELY on the net, read each and every review, saved them and re-read them and in the end (even though I'm a totally Nikon-lens girl), hit the buy button for the Tokina. Very robust lens, top quality, instant focus, no CA issues - I'm very pleased with it. Some say buy Nikon for the resale value but I haven't seen a used Tokina going for much less! I can always get rid of this lens for almost full price as Tokinas aren't sold in Canada and a lot of photogs here are looking for them. Also, I don't plan on ever parting with a 12-24 lens from my arsenal.

    By the way, this is the man who finally pushed me over the edge to the Tokina. All his fault! :biggrin:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2007
  16. Nikon vs Tokina

    First of all thank-you guys for all the responses! Sure helps me make some decisions.

    Ok, I will own my "ONLY" non-Nikon lens. I won't feel so guilty knowing what others have in their bags. hehe. Now what I am saving I can spend on other camera goodies. Oh, never ending ... and keeps me wanting more!

    Jen in Alaska
     
  17. sweetpea

    sweetpea Guest

    I have both Nikon and tokina. The weight is a lot less with tokina and I like them both. Tokina is a good lense. Like they say Its all in what you can afford. I have both.
     
  18. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    i've seen some nasty CA from the Tokina's but like Sandi's mine was never a problem there...and ironic, if u scour the net u will find more peeps having a hard time obtaining a good sample of the Nikon than the Tokina ...another thing, unlike the Sigma the Tokina images have a Nikon look to them ...although, i do like the images from the sig as well...;-)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2007
  19. Cope

    Cope

    Apr 5, 2007
    Houston, Texas
    I have come to the conclusion that there is no perfect lens, and that there are good and bad copies of most, while there are only bad copies of a few.
     
  20. JeffKohn

    JeffKohn

    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    True in general. However both the 12-24DX and the 17-55DX seem to get more than their fair share of complaints from dissatisfied users, which leads me to believe there may be a QC issue with these lenses.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Nikon 85 1.8g vs Tokina 50-135 2.8? Lens Lust Dec 24, 2014
Nikon 12-24mm F4.0 vs Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 Lens Lust May 25, 2014
Nikon 18-35 AFS vs. Tokina 16-28 Lens Lust Apr 3, 2013
Tokina 16-28 vs Nikon 16-35 [The Showdown...in progress] Lens Lust May 4, 2012
Tokina 11-16mm + D7000 vs. Nikon 16-35mm VR + D700 Lens Lust Jan 24, 2012