Any comment on the nikkor 12-24mm? Or do you have any other suggestion on a wide lens of a third party brand?

@ archie

the nikkor 12-24 is a SOLID performer!! borrowed the unit of a good friend for a recent trip to the south - performed really really well! a little pricey though. bought the next best thing - Tokina 12-24. Virtually same performance.

Both are winners in my book:)

it is a very good wide!!!

vertical...

http://static.flickr.com/65/176953925_661d3561c0.jpg

levi, post one of your davao photos!!!

I haven't used any other UWA lenses from other manufacturers but I can guarantee that the Nikon 12-24mm is one hell of a beast! :D

nikkor 12-24

http://www.photo.net.ph/albums/userpics/10608/DSC_8931.JPG

tokina 12-24

http://www.photo.net.ph/albums/userpics/10608/DSC_2058%7E0.JPG

Anyone have sample shots of the 10.5mm Fish? :D

Anyone have sample shots of the 10.5mm Fish? :D

hmmm... this i have to see... :Grin:

it is a very good wide!!!

vertical...

http://static.flickr.com/65/176953925_661d3561c0.jpg

levi, post one of your davao photos!!!

nice pics din. by the way its either the street is curving or i notice some linear distortion at the bottom of the pic. the nikons are known to do this at the 12mm end. can be fixed in photoshop though

Wow that is wide. Sir levi would you recomend the Tokina? or would I just simply get frustrated if I buy it first and still get the nikon?

@ archie

since you asked... here's my take on that...:)

if i have enough money, i would have bought the nikkor (no doubt about it). but since dough is a little limited i opted for the tokina . as mentioned it performs closely to the nikkor (this is based on reviews and my personal experience) in terms of built, speed, color and contrast. i also considered the sigma 10-20 - but this one has a variable aperture and kinda soft on the wide side (again based on personal experience).

good luck! =)

here's some sample shots again...

nikkor

http://www.photo.net.ph/albums/userpics/10608/DSC_8674.JPG


tokina

http://www.photo.net.ph/albums/userpics/10608/DSC_1871.JPG

@carlo

that's the road... it's uneven... (corner Peking and Canton, you can check for yourself)...

@carlo

that's the road... it's uneven... (corner Peking and Canton, you can check for yourself)...

yup thats what i figured

@ archie

If ur on the budget i would suggest the Tokina 12-24. I bought a Tokina since it costs half the price of a nikkor 12-24 and takes excellent pictures.

@Archie

The Nikon 12-24 is a great lens so if you have the budget, go for it. But if you don't, then follow Levi's and Jake's advice and get the Tokina. :)

ok will start looking for a good deal for both lenses and see what happens. Very Excited with this hunt, I got to try the canon 10-22(not sure) last night and found wide angle shot very interesting. Yhanks for the input guys.

How about the Sigma 10-22? Any inputs? :)

@Marton

Based on what I've read, The Tokina is a better performer than the Sigma. Just to quote what Levi had to say about this lens. :)


i also considered the sigma 10-20 - but this one has a variable aperture and kinda soft on the wide side (again based on personal experience).

can anyone post the prices kung sakali so that the future buyers (including me :) will be informed...

nikkor 12-24 = Php ?
tokina 12-24 = Php ?
sigma 10-20 = Php ?
tamron ?-? = Php ? (kung merong tamron) :0)
canon 10-22 = Php ? (sama na rin natin for comparison purposes lang :)

thanks...

canon 10-22= 36th if I remember right

can anyone post the prices kung sakali so that the future buyers (including me :) will be informed...

nikkor 12-24 = Php ?
tokina 12-24 = Php ?
sigma 10-20 = Php ?
tamron ?-? = Php ? (kung merong tamron) :0)
canon 10-22 = Php ? (sama na rin natin for comparison purposes lang :)

thanks...

Ali, suggest you pm ms. dindin lagdameo for the prices.

i bought my tokina 12-24 for about 26,000
i think the sigma retails for about 28,000
the nikon is around 40,000
tamron has an 11-18 but never really checked it out
my friend bought his canon 10-22 for aroun 38,000

does anybody have any experience with the 10.5mm f/2.8 nikkor?

These are BHPhoto prices(in USD):

nikkor 12-24 = $919
tokina 12-24 = $499
sigma 10-20 = $499

thanks for the price info. I now have a target price in mind.

does anybody have any experience with the 10.5mm f/2.8 nikkor?
I have. It's a very nice lens and is very sharp. You can de-fish your photos later on with Nikon Capture. I like it just the way it is though. This lens is fun, you will laugh at the distortion it produces on one's face. A hit with the kids!

The 10-20 Sigma is also very good. CA is almost non-existent. Make sure you get a good copy though. I had to go through 3 copies to get one that is sharp throughout. (The normal complaint with this lens is that it is soft on one side)

Hope this helps.

Where can I get the TOkina lens? Where can I get it?

here is my shot today(saturday) taken by 12-24... is not quite wide since I was not allowed at first to take the shoot of the boat...
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070311/ids_photos_wl/r1078870984.jpg/print;_ylt=AqEKEsv3N2l59MoG7kNZGU2aK8MA

I love this lens... my prime lens ... photojourn... wedding...

Where can I get the TOkina lens? Where can I get it?
hi john, you may contact dindin as she may order for you..
or alternatively, you may also contact henry's in hidalgo (by order).. cheers! :)

got to recently test the nikkor 12-24 f4 and i'm very impressed....
here are some samples...
sharp and contrasty... no PP
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/f1_smiley/ALI%20Projects/DSC_3981.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/f1_smiley/ALI%20Projects/DSC_3929.jpg

i'm still undecided though as i also want low-light performance...
just to share my research... in lieu of the 12-24 f4
was also looking at the 14mm prime coupled with the 17-35mm both f/2.8s
but definitely a "wallet" cruncher of a pair

the tokina 12-24 looks like a great alternative to the nikkor
thanks levi/jake!

you can't go wrong with a tokina, Manny.

BTW, they have a new one out a 10-17mm fisheye.

@Manny,

Can you post the Exif of the picture above? It is really indeed a tack sharp picture. How much did it cost? Thanks!

@cocoy...
12mm f/8 1/250s ISO100 on d200 using vivid
just borrowed it.... it's retailing for around P45k if i'm not mistaken

@caloy...
thanks for the tip... will research on the new tokina 10-17 fisheye

was also looking at the 14mm prime coupled with the 17-35mm both f/2.8s
but definitely a "wallet" cruncher of a pair


The 14mm prime and 17-35 won't be as wide as the 12-24mm.

The Tokina is the logical, practical choice in a matter of speaking, I like it better than the Nikkor version because of the build quality, Image Quality both are an exact match, except when it comes to CA handling in which the Nikon does marginally better. Sharpness and contrast are not that far apart. Both are extremely sharp when stopped down to f5 and exhibit blue fringe at f8. I think Nikon should have used better plastics at least to justify the price. Regardless of what you pick, you won't go wrong with either.

Peace!

Quick Q: Is the Tokina built for Full-frame cameras or just for the DX format? I'm thinking if it could be used for my F90 or a FF dslr (if ever Nikon releases one in the future).

Thanks!

Nope, neither the Tokina nor Nikkor version are FF both are DX lenses.

Peace!

Nope, neither the Tokina nor Nikkor version are FF both are DX lenses.

Peace!

nikon 100% cannot be used on film and FF (if it ever comes out)

tokina i think you can still use 18mm - onwards...anyone can confirm to this?

@ archie

If ur on the budget i would suggest the Tokina 12-24. I bought a Tokina since it costs half the price of a nikkor 12-24 and takes excellent pictures.

How much is the Tokin 12-24 mm? Thanks

at samys.com its $499

i'm still undecided though as i also want low-light performance...
just to share my research... in lieu of the 12-24 f4
was also looking at the 14mm prime coupled with the 17-35mm both f/2.8s
but definitely a "wallet" cruncher of a pair

the tokina 12-24 looks like a great alternative to the nikkor
thanks levi/jake!

The 14mm prime or the 17-35mm will not be wide on a dSLR. If you want wide, only options are the 10.5mm f/2.8, 12-24mm f/4 or 17-55mm f/2.8, all DX lenses. :)

@Manny,

Can you post the Exif of the picture above? It is really indeed a tack sharp picture. How much did it cost? Thanks!

Both pics were taken at f/8, 1/250", ISO 100 :) The Nikon 12-24mm f/4 costs about 48k.

How much is the Tokin 12-24 mm? Thanks

About half the cost of the Nikkor, 24k. :)

@Rosalie,

Isn't the 17mm on the 17-35 (pegged at 79degs 50mins), the same with the 17mm of the 17-55mmDX (also at 79degs, 50mins)? The only difference is that the DX has been "optimized" to be fit the DX format.

Just got confused... :)

@Rosalie,

Isn't the 17mm on the 17-35 (pegged at 79degs 50mins), the same with the 17mm of the 17-55mmDX (also at 79degs, 50mins)? The only difference is that the DX has been "optimized" to be fit the DX format.

Just got confused... :)

The 17-35mm becomes roughly 24-53mm on a dSLR because of the 1.5x crop factor while the 17-55mm is as is. :)

hhhmmmm... Ok.

Actually, I was basing it on the picture angle posted on the www.nikondigital.com (http://www.nikondigital.com), for the 2 lenses. I think I'm missing something here with the 79degs, 50mins... Getting more confused... :(

The 17mm of the 17-35mm on a FF is 99degs, while its 79degs on the DX. So what is the picture angle of the 17mm on the 17-55DX? According to Nikon website, its still 79degs???

hhhmmmm... Ok.

Actually, I was basing it on the picture angle posted on the www.nikondigital.com (http://www.nikondigital.com), for the 2 lenses. I think I'm missing something here with the 79degs, 50mins... Getting more confused... :(

The 17mm of the 17-35mm on a FF is 99degs, while its 79degs on the DX. So what is the picture angle of the 17mm on the 17-55DX? According to Nikon website, its still 79degs???

Can't help you here... never looked at this part of the specifications. All I know is actual usage of the lens, how the focal length differs from film SLR to dSLR. :)

Can't help you here... never looked at this part of the specifications. All I know is actual usage of the lens, how the focal length differs from film SLR to dSLR. :)

Actually, let me have a crack at this the way I understand it...

Focal length is nothing more than the distance from the lens to the Focal plane.

Now quoting Nikon on their FAQ on the DX format:

Q: Does the focal length of a lens increase
when the lens is attached to a DX-format
digital camera?
A: No. Image sensor size is not a factor in determining optical
focal length. Lens focal length does not change if you
switch from a 35mm (135) format to DX-format camera.
However, the picture angle of the lens with a Nikon DX-format
camera is approximately 1.5 times the lens focal
length when converted to 35mm (135) format equivalent.
For example, the picture angle of a 12mm lens in DX format
is equivalent to that of an 18mm lens in 35mm (135)
format. This makes it difficult to produce an ultra-wideangle
lens compatible with the DX format.

Hence, when you attach your 17-55DX on a FF Nikon SLR, the 17mm will still be 17mm (with a picture angle of 79deg). It Vignettes! Why? Because the 17mm is supposed to be 98deg, thus there is some 19deg that is not being covered by the 17-55DX. It doesn't on a 17-35mm (non-DX), because it is already 98deg that covers the whole FF focal plane.

For a DX format DSLR, the 17mm of the 17-55DX with a 79deg picture angle will be enough to cover the 1.5crop sensor. If you use a 17mm of a 17-35mm, the picture angle view projects at 98deg but only 79deg can be covered on the crop sensor. Hence, 79deg is 79deg, so 17mm on the 17-35 is equal to the 17mm of the 17-55.

I hope I make sense. Thanks! :)

@Melvin

Hmmm... I'm not about to argue technicalities with you. Just to simplify what I am trying to say... All I know is a 50mm lens on my film SLR covers a different view than the same lens attached to my dSLR.

I hope I make sense. :)

A 17mm not optimized for DX format is still a 17mm lens, but the picture produced is cropped by the sensor to produce an image that would be equivalent to a 24mm image from a lens optimized for DX format.

So on a DX camera the 17mm on a 17-35 would have a 17mm image but the sensor crops the projected view from the lens to and equivalent 24mm DX lens.

That's how I understand it.

A 17mm not optimized for DX format is still a 17mm lens, but the picture produced is cropped by the sensor to produce an image that would be equivalent to a 24mm image from a lens optimized for DX format.

So on a DX camera the 17mm on a 17-35 would have a 17mm image but the sensor crops the projected view from the lens to and equivalent 24mm DX lens.

That's how I understand it.

Yup! I think this is a much better explanation than mine. :)

So, basically, 17mm both on the 17-35 and 17-55DX will be 24mm (or 25mm???). To summarize (and end the discussion):

Comparing 17mm's
Full Frame SLR (17-35) = 17mm
Full Frame SLR (17-55DX) = 17mm + Vignette
DX format DSLR (17-35) = 24mm
DX format DSLR (17-55DX) = 24mm

Hence, its incorrect to say 17-55DX is wider than 17-35mm lens. :)

Sorry, I'm not really arguing but just clarifying some stuff... Peace! :)

The 14mm prime or the 17-35mm will not be wide on a dSLR. If you want wide, only options are the 10.5mm f/2.8, 12-24mm f/4 or 17-55mm f/2.8, all DX lenses. :)

(sorry to partially hijack this thread.)

thanks rosalie. guess we've been discussing all of this in a separate thread before... :)

was actually reviewing several dpreview threads on the performance of the 17-35 vs the 17-55.... interesting POVs and conclusions derived from actual test results.
agree that the 14 and the 17-35 are not that "wide" but perhaps for my use, these may be sufficient. my options have actually migrated towards the nikkor or tokina 12-24 f/4 and the nikkor 17-35 f/2.8.
all a matter of cost. the 10.5 f/2.8 looks entiticing but then a fisheye may not have as much use for me.

ang hirap ng merong NAS.... walang cure... hahaha!!! :D
beyond wide... still want to get either the nikkor 70-200vr or the 80-200 f/2.8:Scared:

Nikon 12-24
Focal Length 24mm
15 secs
F11
ISO 100


http://www.photo.net.ph/subicantonsheker.jpg

Yup! I think this is a much better explanation than mine. :)

So, basically, 17mm both on the 17-35 and 17-55DX will be 24mm (or 25mm???). To summarize (and end the discussion):

Comparing 17mm's
Full Frame SLR (17-35) = 17mm
Full Frame SLR (17-55DX) = 17mm + Vignette
DX format DSLR (17-35) = 24mm
DX format DSLR (17-55DX) = 24mm

Hence, its incorrect to say 17-55DX is wider than 17-35mm lens. :)

Sorry, I'm not really arguing but just clarifying some stuff... Peace! :)

You are absolutely correct here Melvin. The 17-35 was designed for full-frame cameras that needs a wide angle zoom lens, while the 17-55 is the DX equivalent but with the added bonus of a longer long end.

With that said, the angle of view on the wide end (17mm) of both lenses on a DSLR with a 1.5x is exactly the same.

So why did Nikon produced both lenses? The 17-35 replaced the 20-35 and improved on it's optical design back in the days of film. The 17-55 was released to supplement the 17-35 as a standard-range zoom for DSLR users. Standard zoom here generally refers to zoom lenses with a 28~85 focal length. The 17-55, with the 1.5x crop is effectively a 25.5~82.5 zoom lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture.

The 17-55 is the overwhelming favourite of DSLR users but once Nikon releases it's full- or near full-frame cameras, the 17-35 will become a favourite once again.

The 12-24 just doesn't cut it in terms of optical performance compared to the 17-35/17-55 lenses.

I reinforce Jerry's sentiments... He stated it right on the dot. :)

You are absolutely correct here Melvin. The 17-35 was designed for full-frame cameras that needs a wide angle zoom lens, while the 17-55 is the DX equivalent but with the added bonus of a longer long end.

With that said, the angle of view on the wide end (17mm) of both lenses on a DSLR with a 1.5x is exactly the same.

So why did Nikon produced both lenses? The 17-35 replaced the 20-35 and improved on it's optical design back in the days of film. The 17-55 was released to supplement the 17-35 as a standard-range zoom for DSLR users. Standard zoom here generally refers to zoom lenses with a 28~85 focal length. The 17-55, with the 1.5x crop is effectively a 25.5~82.5 zoom lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture.

The 17-55 is the overwhelming favourite of DSLR users but once Nikon releases it's full- or near full-frame cameras, the 17-35 will become a favourite once again.

The 12-24 just doesn't cut it in terms of optical performance compared to the 17-35/17-55 lenses.

The Master Nikonian SPEAKS! heheheh

Thanks Jerry for clarifying... :)

this is what I have from the 12-24.

i like it for the purposes I have. hope this helps you in your decision.

horizontal
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/401689273_26b1d7d13a.jpg

vertical
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/401689516_5a51a36b07.jpg

Camera: Nikon D200
Exposure: 0.02 sec (1/50)
Aperture: f/5
Focal Length: 12 mm

You are absolutely correct here Melvin. The 17-35 was designed for full-frame cameras that needs a wide angle zoom lens, while the 17-55 is the DX equivalent but with the added bonus of a longer long end.

With that said, the angle of view on the wide end (17mm) of both lenses on a DSLR with a 1.5x is exactly the same.

So why did Nikon produced both lenses? The 17-35 replaced the 20-35 and improved on it's optical design back in the days of film. The 17-55 was released to supplement the 17-35 as a standard-range zoom for DSLR users. Standard zoom here generally refers to zoom lenses with a 28~85 focal length. The 17-55, with the 1.5x crop is effectively a 25.5~82.5 zoom lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture.

The 17-55 is the overwhelming favourite of DSLR users but once Nikon releases it's full- or near full-frame cameras, the 17-35 will become a favourite once again.

The 12-24 just doesn't cut it in terms of optical performance compared to the 17-35/17-55 lenses.


If this is the case, that they are exactly the same, then what's the point of considering the 1.5x crop factor when using "full-frame" lenses on dSLRs? :Thinking:

If this is the case, that they are exactly the same, then what's the point of considering the 1.5x crop factor when using "full-frame" lenses on dSLRs? :Thinking:

Since FF lenses are really designed for 35mm cameras. And given that most Nikon bodies have sensors which are 1.5x smaller diagonally... The relevance of such DX lenses is that they are optimized for sensors which are not FF. But since their intended FOV is the same as the FF counterparts... Then the 1.5x crop factor still applies to them... So in short, the 17mm end of both 17-35 and 17-55DX will just produce the same FOV in Nikon's present DSLR line-up. The only perks to using the DX lens over it's FF counterpart is that it is more optimized for DX bodies, hence there are no excess light or spills as compared to FF lens being used on a DX DSLR... In effect, the DX lens is just dwelling on the DX sweetspot... :Grin: Now, the advantage of owning a FF lens is that once Nikon indeed goes FF; the whole focal-range of said lens would be usable vs. it's DX counterpart which would exhibit severe vignetting at the wide end. :) HTH.

Now, the advantage of owning a FF lens is that once Nikon indeed goes FF; the whole focal-range of said lens would be usable vs. it's DX counterpart which would exhibit severe vignetting at the wide end. :) HTH.

well said replies from both earl and jerry....
which is my reason why i'm still pining for the non-DX lenses.
still, the 12-24 does have its "advantages".

just for the nitpicking
anyone here who cares to share his shots taken from the 10.5 f2.8 fisheye? TIA

@manny

dave deluria is the 10.5fisheye master!!! paging dave.

just bought a d80. is the tokina 12-24 a good wide lens for the d80? meron ba ito sa hidalgo? tnx

just bought a d80. is the tokina 12-24 a good wide lens for the d80? meron ba ito sa hidalgo? tnx
pm Levi Lacandula about it......it's good for the D70s and D200 if you want to know:).

Hi guys! I currently have a D50 with the kit lens and contemplating on going wide this time since I love taking landscapes. Is the Tokina 12-24 a good match for the D50? Since i'm new to the forum and really don't have any friends into photography, I don't have the luxury of asking around and borrowing any wide lens to try out. Would love to get the Nikkor but sad to say, my pocket will not be happy.

TIA and great site!