Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · Nikon 10-24 An Upgrade Over Tok 12-24
  
 
ocir
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Nikon 10-24 An Upgrade Over Tok 12-24


DX UWA question here.

I've had the Tok 12-24 for years now. While it's built like a tank and is more than serviceable, somehow I am not impressed with the sharpness even stopping down say at f/10 and the flare is just unbearable sometimes. Would the Nikon 10-24 be an upgrade in terms of better sharpness and less flare? Note - I'm not interested with the Nikon 12-24, Tok 11-16 or any Sigma's UWA. Nikon 12-24 is too steep for my pocket at the moment, Tok 11-16 - I'm not really fond of the end focal length at 16mm and as for Sigma's - I used to own a couple of Sigma's UWA but was not impressed as well.



Oct 01, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Still Bill
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · Nikon 10-24 An Upgrade Over Tok 12-24


Can't help with a comparison with the Tokina 12-24, but I own both the 10-24 and 12-24 Nikon lenses. To me, having 24mm at the long end is useful enough I've not been interested in the 11-16. The only "disadvantage" to the 10-24 Nikon vs the 12-24 NIkon is f/4.5 vs f/4 at the long end, and that hasn't mattered to me one bit. It's only 1/3 stop exposure difference. OTOH, on the short end, it's a bit faster than f/4...by 1/3 stop.

The sharpness seems to be the same to me, but I'm not really a pixel-peeper. I do notice things like that in prints, though. I think the 10-24 sharpness is about as good as it gets with DX in that zoom range. While important to me, it wasn't the deciding factor between the lenses, and neither was the build quality or the end of the lens moving in and out when zooming (the 10-24 is sturdy enough). What mattered to me was 10mm. It's a big difference vs 12mm on DX. Now, I don't shoot that much at 10mm, but it's nice that it's there when I want it. I really like my 12-24...it's an old friend that delivered a lot of good shots. It was on my D70s in late '05 through a D200 and onto the D7k, but I've had a few shots ruined by the IR hot spot. On my non-IR D200, it occasionally gave a purplish/violet cast in the lower center of images shot in harsh light, including a set shot with hard window light in Lincoln's mother's log cabin that put the purple all over the foot of the bed and the wood plank floor. No such problems with the 10-24. I can also use it on my IR converted D5100, no problem. All on it's own merits, I'd get the 10-24 Nikon.

My last comment is this: I work in New Guinea, and I brought along a D7k, 17-55/2.8, 10.5mm fish, and a 10-24. Right now, my 12-24 is sitting in a closet in the USA. I'll probably sell it on my next home visit.



Oct 03, 2012 at 11:37 AM
williamkazak
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Nikon 10-24 An Upgrade Over Tok 12-24


Variable aperture is not so much fun with speedlights in my experience. Also, a used Nikon 12-24 can be had for less money than new. Check out KEH for current used prices.
http://www.keh.com/



Oct 03, 2012 at 09:59 PM
oobie
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Nikon 10-24 An Upgrade Over Tok 12-24


Loved my Tokina 12-24. Made some money w' that lens.


Oct 04, 2012 at 03:49 AM
woos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Nikon 10-24 An Upgrade Over Tok 12-24


ocir wrote:
DX UWA question here.

I've had the Tok 12-24 for years now. While it's built like a tank and is more than serviceable, somehow I am not impressed with the sharpness even stopping down say at f/10 and the flare is just unbearable sometimes. Would the Nikon 10-24 be an upgrade in terms of better sharpness and less flare? Note - I'm not interested with the Nikon 12-24, Tok 11-16 or any Sigma's UWA. Nikon 12-24 is too steep for my pocket at the moment, Tok 11-16 - I'm not really fond of the end focal length at 16mm and
...Show more

Flare wise the Tokina stuff (11-16 as well) is bad. Sharpness, don't expect it to be much diff.

If you are after the best sharpness that's goin to mean going Sigma 8-16mm, imho. But no filters and has field curvature. And a short long end. Sigma 10-20 (the slower one) is also really good. But you said you don't want to try Sigma, so :P. On Canon I had the 11-16mm Tokina, 8-16mm Sigma, and gf had (and I've used a good bit) the Canon 10-22mm. The Sigma was by far the sharpest and had the lowest CA. Canon had the least flare. Tokina had 2.8. Pick a strength, lol.



Oct 04, 2012 at 09:08 PM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password