Wide angle zooms for Nikon D-200, Tokina?

[Carl Brady]

I've reviewed quite a few test reports, including Photozone, and conclude that the Tokina 12-24 f/4 AF AT-X Pro DX is a great lens for the money. The Nikkor AF-S 12-24 f/4G IF-ED DX is a better lens but is so close, and at some focal lenths and apertures the Tokina is as sharp or sharper, e.g. at 12mm f/4 and f/5.6; 18mm f/11; at 24mm f/11. In almost every instance the Nikkor is shaper in the center than is the Tokina, but the Tokina is more consistently sharp throughout the focal plane. Even the Sigma 10-20 is sharper in the center than is the Nikkor 12-24 at 10mm and f/5.6 and is sharper than the Nikkor in the center and the border at 10mm and f/8.

The Tokina 12-24 AF f/4-5.6 HSM EX DG looks like quite a dog with overall resolution bested by all, even the Sigma 10-20 in most respects.

The Nikkor 12-24 DX is a stunning lens at a stunning price and really shines at 20mm f/4, and I've said its center sharpness is somewhat better than the Tokina 12-24 Pro. According to the test reports, the Tokina 12-24 Pro is on heck of a lens for the money.

Carl

[Phil_Taylor]

Why not look at the Sigma 10-20 also? On my Canon kit it's pin sharp, some reports say that it outperforms the Canon 17-40 L at some focal lengths. It's available in Nikon fit of course, and has the HSM focussing, a bit like Nikon's silent wave system.

With ultra wide lens tests you will always get corner definition fall off, it's the nature of the beast.

[ChristianLandry]

I have been in the same thought process for a while. I had to rule out the Tokina because it is not available in Canada, but heard only good things about it and would normaly be my first choice....
I tried the Sigma even after swearing never to buy this brand again since i got burned with 2 bad copies of their 120-300mm. and their total absence of pro repair service
I actualy liked the lens and it performed very well ( Nikon mount ) but the real life aperture of 5.6 is a much bigger problem than i expected. If you're confident that you can live with the "built in darkness" ( no pj style of work with available light, much tougher to use manual focus indoor in an idustrial or achitectural assignment, etc ....) then go ahead, it is a good complementary piece of equipment.

[LarryLetzer]

I already own the Nikkor 17-55 lens and anytime my son had a wedding to photograph he would borrow it. I did not want to spend the money ($1200 for another 17-55 Nikkor, but I saw the 17-50 Tamron advertised for under $450. I bought him this lens and it compares beautifully with the much higher priced Nikkor lens.

[billsstills]

That Tokina seems rather valuable to me for about half the price of the Nikon I can't see a reason to buy the Nikon over the Tokina.

There's one on offer from e-bay now in Melbourne (if it ain't in the country...).

Good post though I did look around a bit to see how everyone else felt about that lens... couldn't find much complaint.


Bill.

[gavin_crawford]

Absolute thumbs up for the Sigma 10-20, I took back the Nikkor 12-24 after I used this great bit of glass.
Gav

[billsstills]

Just to re-address my purchase of the Tokina 12-24 lens.

I have used it with a model and also to shoot the USS Kitty Hawk as a tourist in my own city.
My recomendation is that this is a very good lens of which I can't find any fault currently.

Bill.