Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hi, I'm considering getting an UWA lens sooner. I've narrowed down to the Nikkor 12-24 or the Tokina 11-16.

I'm leaning more towards the Tokina, because most reviews I've read said its sharper, and it has the F2.8. Does the F2.8 really help in low light in a UWA lens? I'm asking because I've never owned an UWA lens before, so I don't know how low of a shutter speed I can go without noticing any camera shake.

Also, if you think I should go for the Nikkor, please explain why you think its better? Please don't say, because its not a third party lens. I'm not a fan of third party lenses either, but the Tokina seems like a solid contender.

Also I know the Tokina is hard to come by.

Oh, and the extra zoom range on the Nikkor doesn't really appeal to me.

I just want to hear some more opinions from others.

I have the Nikon D90 if that matters at all.

you can go pretty low on shutter speed, but that's limited again. Tokina all the way or Canon 10-22, I am actually considering Tokina myself as my next lens upgrade

It sounds like you're just about set on the Tokina. I have this lens and for the price I was surprise at the performance it gives you. As you know, it's out of stock at most if not all camera store in the GTA. That's how good this lens is.

I've never used the Nikon 12-24, but I can tell you that the Tokina does have some short comings. My major one is, when shooting towards the sun and or light source, it does give you flares in your pictures. A quick fix in post or just re-position yourself.

If you're going to use an uwa lens alot in low light then the Tokina is the winner.

From what I've heard, a large number of Tokina 11-16 lenses had a manufacturing defect resulting in major focusing issues. Hence, the shortage -- and make sure you have recourse if you find yourself with a bad copy.

I considered the Tokina myself until I borrowed a Nikon 12-24, and then they introduced the 10-24. Now, I'm saving up for the latter. If you're willing to invest the $$$ for a Nikon 12-24, you may also be willing consider the 10-24 (f/3.5-4.5)? I think it's actually a little bit cheaper. And if you're really on a budget, then the Tokina 12-24 is reputedly nearly comparable to the Nikon.

Anyhow, besides the larger focal range, the other deciding factor for me is simply AF-S. I found myself refocusing manually so much that it is worth it to me to not have to flip the one extra switch. Basically, it came down to handling for me. All other factors are almost equal. The Tokina 11-16 has f/2.8, but not the focal range which is apparently not a problem for you.

Good luck with your choice!

Can't speak from experience on your target lenses. I once had a Tokina zoom lens many years ago on my Canon set up. It was OK, but I never liked the build. Compared to Canon lenses felt "cheap" and sloppy. I eventually sold it.

Perhaps you have seen these reviews. Ken Rockwell loves the Tokina (review is a year + old) and Thom seems to like the Nikkor (his review appears to be even older being from 2005).

http://www.bythom.com/1224lens.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

Daryl

I've used both lenses before and I ended up getting the Tokina after 5 months of being on the waiting list at DC.

Build quality is excellent, and overall image quality is great. I did find that the lens flares a bit, but as imageone said, its an easy fix.

I'm sure you'll be very happy with this lens.

with Tokina there's a known issue of CA, which is annoying, but easily fixed in post

hmm.. I wasn't aware of the flare with the Tokina, but thanks for pointing that out.

I looked up some used Nikkor 12-24's, and it seems around the same price as a new Tokina. I think I may go for the Nikkor now.

Just one more question folks. Nikon lens warranty are not transferrable? correct? So if I buy used, and it dies the next day, I'm pretty much SOL? I just want someone to confirm this for me.

Thanks for everyone's responses. It helped me out a lot. I'll probably just rent the 12-24, and see if I'm happy with it or not.

That's correct, you're SOL, unless the person you're buying from is willing to put it through for you. That is if it is still under warranty.

Sigma 10-20mm

I've been very happy with mine, an example:



a review:
http://www.bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm

Personally, I would go for the Nikon 12-24 if I were you... its a nicer lens than the Tokina. I had the Tokina 12-24 actually, and found it a tad soft wide open at f/4. It was still a nice lens.

But now, I shoot UWA with the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 which is an awesome lens.. with the Nano Crystal coating... my images are super sharp. I'll have it with me tomorrow night at the EX shoot.

It seems it's out of stock everywhere. I bought this lense last week and the store said there might be a delay since it's out of stock. we have only 2 stores in Israel that sell this lense.

I'm going to give them a week or two.

I've decided on the Nikkor.

Not as sharp as the tokina, and no F2.8, but F4 should be good enough for me. Plus its sharp enough for me. No flare issues, or strong CA issues. I've seen some terrible tokina pictures with the CA, and all you're looking at in the picture is the CA. This is not from pixel peeping either. Its from directly looking at the photo without zooming in.

I do pixel peep from time to time, but I'm not really too concerned, if you can't tell by looking directly at the picture.

Overall, I think the Nikkor is the best compromise between the lenses if you compare both pros and cons.

Anyways, thanks everyone for their input. Greatly appreciated.