thoguhts on Nikon WA zooms (AFS types)

Nikon is insanely expensive, I have not use the Sigma extensively, just a few shot here and there. I can recommend the Tokia 12-24 though, excellent lens, very well built and in term of IQ not that far behind the Nikon for nearly 1/3 the price.
 
Everything I've read with respect to Nikkors is that you get what you pay for. More expensive ones are good/great, less expensive ones are great body caps.

No hands on.

B2 (;->
 
I have a 12-24 DX Nikkor. The main gripe I have with it is that it's DX, ie you can't use it on your film Nikons or an FX camera. Well, you can, from a focal length of about 19 to 24, it doesn't vignette. But that just makes me want wider! :eek:

The good things about this lens are many. At 12mm on DX, it's the widest lens I have. It's got all the 'iq' stuff internet people rave about, and it is very flare-free. I can include the sun in a photo, and it brings only minor blobs with it, and has a great star around the sun itself.

This lens is also one of only two that perform well on my D70 IR camera. Most of the other Nikkors I have show a focus shift in the IR.
 
Thanks Chris and all

Thanks Chris and all

I've seen great images from the Nikon 12-24, and also some amazing things from the Sigma 10-20. I haven't seen much of the Tokina, but will try to find some info. on that too.


Chris101 said:
I have a 12-24 DX Nikkor. The main gripe I have with it is that it's DX, ie you can't use it on your film Nikons or an FX camera. Well, you can, from a focal length of about 19 to 24, it doesn't vignette. But that just makes me want wider! :eek:

The good things about this lens are many. At 12mm on DX, it's the widest lens I have. It's got all the 'iq' stuff internet people rave about, and it is very flare-free. I can include the sun in a photo, and it brings only minor blobs with it, and has a great star around the sun itself.

This lens is also one of only two that perform well on my D70 IR camera. Most of the other Nikkors I have show a focus shift in the IR.
Click to expand...
 
BillBingham2 said:
Everything I've read with respect to Nikkors is that you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...
No.. unfortunately this isn't the case..

I've had some gems and dogs.. and there's no relation to price.

Pricey dogs:

the 24-120 AFD had pincushion distortion so bad at 35mm that it was useless

the 24/2.8 AFD, had a couple, none was sharp despite all the hoopla about CRC (finally settled on a 28/2.8 AFD that had no CRC but that was sharp)

Cheap gems:

28-70/3.5-4.5 AFD really sharp, and very very very good contrast
18-55/3.5-5.6 AFS surprising lens when stopped 1 down
 
I have the 12-24 nikkor. It's a good lens. I use it at 12 a lot. It's got some CA@12 of course and not razor sharp in the extreme corners until 18, but still a very handy lens on DX.
 
Hi All,

I have a Sigma 10-20 that I use with my D300, often with a Nissin Di622 flash (at parties) and I have to say that although it is (optically) a touch slow (hence the flash!) the focussing is fast and reliable and the IQ is outstanding. Distortion is pretty good, given that it's nearly wide enough to be fisheye, but architectural shots have proved pretty useable, even without correction in post-processing.

In all, it's a lens I quite like and use a fair bit as it's nice to have wide angles back after using a crop DSLR for a couple of years!

Tra

Piggly
 
I have the Nikkor 14-24 and it is without peer, sharp to the corners. Some say it's better than primes in the same range but I haven't shot any comparisons so can't say. It is expensive and insanely heavy for a wide zoom but if you have the coin and need the range, it'll work like a champ.
 
The results from the Tokina 11-16/2.8 are good and I'm thinking about getting one. I currently use a 17-55/2.8 as my standard lens so the Tokina would go well with it. Peter Hamm's review of the Tokina is worth reading.
 
need AFS

need AFS

Hi Peter, I think that Tokina is out for me, at least this lens, as I'm using a D40x which needs an AFS lens (lens with focus motor built in) at least to be able to AF.

peter_n said:
The results from the Tokina 11-16/2.8 are good and I'm thinking about getting one. I currently use a 17-55/2.8 as my standard lens so the Tokina would go well with it. Peter Hamm's review of the Tokina is worth reading.
Click to expand...
 
I own the Nikkor 12-24/4. I use this lens commercially for real estate photography.

All the wide DX zooms from Nikon, Sigma and Tokina are horrible. The have a boat load of CA, they are soft at the edges wide-open and they are slow (except for the 11-16/2.8 which has reasonable speed). While there are always sample-to-sample variations, the published reviews indicate the Nikkor is the best performer, i.e. the least horrible. Many people are happy with their Sigma and Tokina lenses... for good reason I'm sure. I do not doubt there are samples of the Sigma/Tokina WA DX lenses that are as good or better than the worst samples of the Nikkor.

The question is: how much are you willing to pay to get that next 5% improvement in image quality? This seems to be THE question for lenses.

But the Nikkor seemed to me like the best way to meet my needs. The Nikkor 12-24/4 the build quality is excellent and the lens gets the job done. It is very sharp and vignetting is never an issue in practice. The Nikkor has relatively low geometrical distortion which is important for my work. Unsurprisingly, the performance is lowest at 12mm. I use mine at 16 mm 90% of the time. When I shoot interiors I like to use as much ambient light as possible and achieve fill with with 2-4 externally triggered strobes. This means I shoot mostly at f 5.6-8. The lens works best with slight underexposure as this minimizes fringing artifacts. The CA is manageable in post if the frame is not over-exposed. If one of the channels overflows, then CA/fringing correction becomes problematic. For critical work check all the RGB histograms. Don't fear under exposure. RAW images provide effective shadow recovery at ISO 400 (with the D300, a bit less so with the D200). The lens will flare when shot directly into the sun which can be a problem for exterior property shots when the sun is low in the sky.

Despite the CA and fringing, I would buy this lens again. I can make money with it and it has held up well. I do not trust the quality/consistency of Tokina/Sigma products, but I understand they may be excellent alternative selections.
 
Thanks Willie

Thanks Willie

This is great info. I'm not considering a Tokina, but the Sigma 10-20, has very interesting distortion very wide. I wouldn't doubt that the Nikon is a better overall lens from 12-20, but a lot more expensive as well. I don't think Tokina makes an AFS built-in motor for the cheaper D40/60 models.

willie_901 said:
I own the Nikkor 12-24/4. I use this lens commercially for real estate photography.

All the wide DX zooms from Nikon, Sigma and Tokina are horrible. The have a boat load of CA, they are soft at the edges wide-open and they are slow (except for the 11-16/2.8 which has reasonable speed). While there are always sample-to-sample variations, the published reviews indicate the Nikkor is the best performer, i.e. the least horrible. Many people are happy with their Sigma and Tokina lenses... for good reason I'm sure. I do not doubt there are samples of the Sigma/Tokina WA DX lenses that are as good or better than the worst samples of the Nikkor.

The question is: how much are you willing to pay to get that next 5% improvement in image quality? This seems to be THE question for lenses.

But the Nikkor seemed to me like the best way to meet my needs. The Nikkor 12-24/4 the build quality is excellent and the lens gets the job done. It is very sharp and vignetting is never an issue in practice. The Nikkor has relatively low geometrical distortion which is important for my work. Unsurprisingly, the performance is lowest at 12mm. I use mine at 16 mm 90% of the time. When I shoot interiors I like to use as much ambient light as possible and achieve fill with with 2-4 externally triggered strobes. This means I shoot mostly at f 5.6-8. The lens works best with slight underexposure as this minimizes fringing artifacts. The CA is manageable in post if the frame is not over-exposed. If one of the channels overflows, then CA/fringing correction becomes problematic. For critical work check all the RGB histograms. Don't fear under exposure. RAW images provide effective shadow recovery at ISO 400 (with the D300, a bit less so with the D200). The lens will flare when shot directly into the sun which can be a problem for exterior property shots when the sun is low in the sky.

Despite the CA and fringing, I would buy this lens again. I can make money with it and it has held up well. I do not trust the quality/consistency of Tokina/Sigma products, but I understand they may be excellent alternative selections.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom