Nikon 12-24 or Tokina 12-24?

[toriaj]

My camera made me some money. Almost enough now to reward myself with a new lens :D

My favorite subjects are landscapes, and by far the majority of my landscapes are taken at my widest length, 18mm. I'm often wishing for a wider FOV. Another large group of my landscape shots are between 20 and 26 mm. I'm drawn to these two lenses because not only will I get a wideangle, but I'll be able to get the 20-24mm with the improved IQ from the new lens. (And going from 26 to 24mm is just a step or so.) That's why I'm considering these two lenses over the Sigma 10-20, which I know is also a great lens.

So I'm looking at the Nikon 12-24 and the Tokina 12-24. I can't afford the Nikon unless I buy it at a substantial discount, such as $650 on ebay. I could buy the Tokina full price, or I could buy it on ebay for around $350 and be able to get a slim polarizer at the same time.

I've heard great things about the Tokina compared to the Nikon. My biggest priority is IQ. I want to be blown away compared to my old lenses. What should I do?

[K1W1]

I've heard great things about the Tokina compared to the Nikon.

Wait till Rooz replies.

[erichlund]

Consider the Tokina 11-16. It's image quality is supposed to be superior to both 12-24s.

[toriaj]

Oh now we're REALLY going to hear it from Rooz, way to go erich ...

jk. I remember Rooz's experience with Tokina (let's see, KMA comes to mind ...) Now that you've had a few months to chill, Rooz, what is your sage advice?

Not to mention that the 11-16 is out of stock AGAIN, and it really isn't long enough IMO. I wouldn't get that overlap (as easily.)

[TheWengler]

I'd get the Tokina. Do you *need* a slim CPL for that lens?

[toriaj]

B&H recommends this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/133012-REG/B_W_65016930_77_mm_Circular_Polarizer.html) CP for the Tokina. I think I'd get a slim one just to be on the safe side (there's no disadvantage to a slim filter, is there?)

[Rooz]

tokina 11-16 hands down. the nikkor is grossly overpriced. make sure you buy it new from somewhere that has a return policy though. some quality control issues with it.

[accord2003]

Toriaj

I bought the Nikon a few months ago. Like Rooz said, if you do not need the reach, the Tokina is the better lens. As long as you can return it if you get a bad copy, it is worth the effort.

That said, have you tried the local craiglist? Sometimes you get great deals on there. I got mine from there. there is no shipping cost and you can inspect the lens before releasing your money.

[Turo]

Based o the reviews I've read, I have to agree with Rooz and erchlund, the Tokina 11-16. Mind you, I have not tried it personally so this is based solely on online reviews and comparisons, but it appears to have better image quality than both 12-24's and the price is not bad new.

Do you need the overlap in focal ranges between lenses? Because the 11-16 would compliment your existing lenses nicely I think.

[erichlund]

OK, I have the Tokina 12-24. I really like it. However, it does have some issues with flare and ghosting. Also, the thin filter would be best.

Still, 11-16 then 18-whatever leaves 17mm as your gap. That's what, about a 6" step. That's really lazy.

If that gap gives you a problem, the 55-70 gap must be keeping you up at night.

OK, I'll stop now. ;-)

[toriaj]

The main reason I ruled out the 11-16 was the gap from 16 to 26mm that I was using in my shots. I wanted to be able to duplicate the 18-26mm reach to improve the shots in the range I am already using. Is it reasonable to use "foot zoom" to get roughly the same shot at 16 mm as at 26 mm? (I knew that was very possible from 24 to 26 mm. But is it from 16 to 26?)

The other issue is still standing though -- the 11-16 is Out Of Stock. Do we have reason to hope it will return, soon? Otherwise my only option is to get it from ebay, craigslist, or similar. I found this (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=130264994678&fromMakeTrack=true&ssPageName=VIP:watchlink:middle:us) listing on ebay, does it look decent? Last time I looked on craigslist I didn't have any luck, "local" is rather irrelevant out here. Couldn't find anything within 500 miles. A trip like that would pay for the whole lens :eek:

[Turo]

Were you trying to get it used? Because I know it is out at B&H, but adorama still has it I believe:

http://www.adorama.com/TN1116NK.html?searchinfo=nikon%20tokina%2011%2016&item_no=1

[toriaj]

I already looked at that page on Adorama, it states, "This Item is out of stock due to a back order situation. Please note: You can order this now and as soon as it arrives we will ship it to you. We do not charge your card for any backordered items. We only charge your card when we actually ship." in red letters :(

[TheWengler]

I think I'd get a slim one just to be on the safe side (there's no disadvantage to a slim filter, is there?)

I don't think you can put a regular lens cap on it. They might sell some special ones that slide over the filter. Not sure though.

[erichlund]

A word about filters: You might consider a clear filter on your telephotos, because you are using them for things like sports. Most people don't shoot sports with a superwide. So, as long as you use the hood (and you should), then there's not a lot of danger to the lens. So that leaves the polarizer and graduated ND filters.

The Tokina 12-24 will vignette on a normal thickness filter at it's widest settings. I can state this as fact, as I have seen mine do so. It appears as tiny black triangles in the corners of your image. The Tokina cannot be used at ANY width on an FX camera, unless you just want to crop an image, or you prefer photos with a black, circular framing.

The super thin filters do need a special lens cap, because they do not have an outer thread. Of course, you then have to take off the hood, because the cap will not be compatible with the hood.

What I do is this. I use a regular thickness polarizer, and, if I remember, I slightly reduce the shot from widest possible angle. If I forget, then I crop the corners in post. Another alternative would be to clone the corners to something you want them to be. The part that is vignetted is VERY small, and it's no real problem. If you're printing and matting the photo, you may not even have to do anything. Using a regular polarizer eliminates capping/hood issues.

Because of the flare and ghosting issues with the lens, I consider the hood more important than the very corners of the image. Of course, when I don't need a polarizer, I take it off.

[toriaj]

Erich and Lukas, Thanks for that information about the filters, that's very useful. I think I found a Tokina dealer in Salt Lake City, so I can visit the shop and play around with the lenses. Erich, I'm glad you remember my sports photos, but actually I use a long lens for them (currently my Sigma, but someday the Nikon 70-300 ... :p) I definitely plan on using the hood but I probably won't worry about a UV filter, since there won't be "stuff" spraying onto the lens.

Thanks again for your advice everyone. I'll need to save up a little more, and once I have the $$$, I think the contest will be between the Tokina 11-16 and the Tokina 12-24.

I'd love more comments on the range from 17-24 mm that I would no longer be duplicating (e.g. still shooting with my kit lens) if I get the 11-16. Can I get essentially the same shot at 16mm as 24mm? Is cropping something to take into consideration? (Remember I only have 6.1mp on my d50, so there's not that much room for cropping and still printing to 20 inches or so.)

[Prospero]

I'd love more comments on the range from 17-24 mm that I would no longer be duplicating (e.g. still shooting with my kit lens) if I get the 11-16. Can I get essentially the same shot at 16mm as 24mm? Is cropping something to take into consideration? (Remember I only have 6.1mp on my d50, so there's not that much room for cropping and still printing to 20 inches or so.)

You cannot take the same shot at 16 as you can take at 24. Of course by zooming with your feet, you can often get the same things in the shot, but the perspective will be drastically different.
If you for instance take group shots at 16 mm, you may see distorted faces (especially at the edge of the picture). This occurs to a much lesser extend at 24mm.

Cropping a 16mm image to match the view of a 24mm image will not give you the perspective issues but you would only have 2.66 megapixels left, which isn't all that much. Also, cropping so much will make flaws of the lens or noise show up much quicker on prints.

So, even though the Tokina 11-16 offers superior image quality and constant f/2.8, it seems to me that a 12-24 lens will suit your purposes better.

[toriaj]

Thanks Dennis, that helps a lot. I had been wondering the same thing about the perspective. And I'm leaning toward the 12-24 myself, mainly for the zoom range but also because of availability and price. Now I can't wait to scratch up the remaining $250 or so that I'll need for the lens and CPL. I want to get a decent CPL, last time I only spent around $45, is it worth it to spend $100? Any specific models you'd recommend?

[Prospero]

Thanks Dennis, that helps a lot. I had been wondering the same thing about the perspective. And I'm leaning toward the 12-24 myself, mainly for the zoom range but also because of availability and price. Now I can't wait to scratch up the remaining $250 or so that I'll need for the lens and CPL. I want to get a decent CPL, last time I only spent around $45, is it worth it to spend $100? Any specific models you'd recommend?

I am using the cheapest model by Hoya. At the time this one was quite expensive here in the Netherlands. I haven't noticed any degradations of the image quality while using this filter (only some flare every now and then, but I don't know if that was caused by the filter or the lens).
I don't know if it's really worth it to go for the fancy b+w mulitcoated filters.

[toriaj]

Have you had any trouble using the polarizer at very wide focal lengths? I've heard that the wide FOV creates uneven skies when a CP is used.

[erichlund]

That is something to be aware of. Basically, because of the wide variation in angle to the sun's position, the sky will appear with a color gradient. You either learn to live with it, or don't use the polarizer. Largely, it depends on the shot, and how much the elements that are impacted by the polarizer affect the overall image. If the sky was the image, I'd probably forgo the polarizer.

I have taken shots where it's very apparent and others where it doesn't have a huge impact on the photo. Frankly, you'll be more worried about taking unintentional pictures of your feet. That's very easy to do. It would be nice to have a 100% viewfinder when you are shooting a superwide, but, for me, a D3 is not in the cards. Just remember, a level camera is good. ;-)

[Prospero]

As long as there are clouds in the sky, I think the gradient is not all that easily visible. However, with a clear blue sky, it's sometimes best not to use a polarizer as you can easily see the colour gradient. This also depends on the time of the day you shoot in. At 10 in the morning or 4 in the afternoon, the polarizer has most effect, and when shooting at the time you may find that the part of the sky that is affected by the polarizer is large enough to almost fill the frame (so you would not see any gradients).

[toriaj]

Thanks guys, that helps a lot. So Dennis, you've found that using the polarizer at 10 a.m. or 4 p.m. shows the LEAST negative gradient effect and the MOST darkening effect from the polarizer? Good point about the clouds, that makes sense.

Erich, I've heard about the feet shots ... I'll have to post some just for fun ... actually I even wear glasses too, so I have even less percentage in my viewfinder. I hope that finding some object in front of my feet and making sure that object doesn't make it into the viewfinder will help ... lol. That's my plan anyway :D

It turns out that the Tokina dealer in Salt Lake City went out of business. I even emailed Tokina directly and the next closest dealer seems to be in St. George, almost 500 miles away :eek: so it looks like I'll need to buy the lens online, sight unseen. I'm okay with that, but it would have been nice to buy it at a "real" store.

If I have the money, I'm thinking about getting the Nikon Series II CPL (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300501-REG/Nikon_2260_77mm_Circular_Polarizer_Filter.html#Rev iewHeader). It's a "regular" (i.e. not slim) CP, but several of the reviews say it doesn't vignette on wide angle lenses. Even if it does, I have Erich's tips on how to deal with it :) Has anyone ever used the Series II filters? Are they worth it?

[erichlund]

I was reminded of this thread today. I was browsing through another site and some "person" reflected that the Nikkor 14-24 was better as an indoor lens because it could not take filters. Needless to say, I'm just speechless.

[toriaj]

I was reminded of this thread today. I was browsing through another site and some "person" reflected that the Nikkor 14-24 was better as an indoor lens because it could not take filters. Needless to say, I'm just speechless.

huh? :rolleyes:

[VTEC_EATER]

I have the Nikkor 12-24/4. I like it a lot. I carry it with me in the every day bag, I use it that much. I have used slim filters on it and I never get any vignetting on the lens,every. Even with a CP filter, I have had no problems. And my lens cap grabs onto the filter, so no problems there. No problems with the lens hood either. No issues at all.

I had a thread on here some where about the lens. Let me see if I can find it...

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31373&highlight=12-24

There are some minor CA issues that come up every now and again, especially when shooting with a clear filter, but that can mostly be cleaned up in post.

Distortion (barrel and perspective) need a lot of practice to control. You cant do too much about the barrel distortion, but the perspective distortion requires a lot of toying around with your positioning relative to what you are shooting. If you are too high, things will look like they are vanishing into some black hole 100 feet below the floor. Too low and things look like they fly into the sky and never end.

Its just a tricky lens to use at first and it takes a bit to learn just how to use the lens properly.

[toriaj]

Thanks, VTEC. It was helpful to read your thread about how you learned to work with the lens. Do you have any other pictures you've taken with the ultrawide that you'd like to share? (erich that goes for you too) Was there any reason that you didn't consider, or ruled out the Tokina 14-24? I think that the Nikon is too expensive for me just now, especially since the Tokina version stacks up against it so well in reviews.

[Prospero]

Thanks guys, that helps a lot. So Dennis, you've found that using the polarizer at 10 a.m. or 4 p.m. shows the LEAST negative gradient effect and the MOST darkening effect from the polarizer? Good point about the clouds, that makes sense.

Yes, that's it. However, there's more to it than just the time. I think things like humidity, smog, etc also influence the way in which the polarizer works. Possibly even your location matters, because when I was in Italy, my polarizer worked a lot better :)


If I have the money, I'm thinking about getting the Nikon Series II CPL (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300501-REG/Nikon_2260_77mm_Circular_Polarizer_Filter.html#Rev iewHeader). It's a "regular" (i.e. not slim) CP, but several of the reviews say it doesn't vignette on wide angle lenses. Even if it does, I have Erich's tips on how to deal with it :) Has anyone ever used the Series II filters? Are they worth it?

From what I have heard about polarizers by Nikon is that they are overpriced and that there qualitiy is not all that good. From what I have heard a slim filter by Hoya may be a better deal, or one from B+W (although this one is even more expensive).

[K1W1]

28 comments and only 5 votes. :confused:

[toriaj]

That's fine, the thread served its purpose :)
Thanks for your thoughts on Nikon CPLs Dennis. I see a range, even in Hoya and B+W, from about $45 to $200. If I don't buy the most expensive one, how do I know it's still an excellent choice? Are the customer reviews the main thing?

[erichlund]

huh? :rolleyes:

We were talking superwides. The 14-24 is as superwide as it gets on FX, wider than a 12-24 on DX. Yes, it does not take filters, but having discussed some of the issues with polarizers on superwides, it's really not a critical shortcoming. As far as image quality, it's better than any zoom in the Nikon lineup (Rooz will understand the qualification there ;)) and perportedly better than even the primes it supplants. So, this idiot is not going to take it outside because you can't put a filter on it???