 |
|
|
canfraggle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 60
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $860.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
AF-S, quick and silent
Non telescoping
Pretty fast for an ultra wide angle
Good sharpness, even at f/4. Extremely sharp at 24mm (true to Mr. Roslett's review)
Good contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Inevitably, the corners suffer, especially at 12mm f/4
A lame complaint, but it is quite pricey given that the Canon version is at least 100 less if not more
|
|
|
I shoot candid photojournalism and some landscape. 12-24 is a great range for this purpose. The lens matches my D200 well and since its mostly enclosed and non telescoping, I even take it out in heavy rain with just a tightly screwed on UV filter, a pierced ziploc bag and a bunch of rubber bands to secure it. No regrets on this purchase.
|
|
 Apr 13, 2006
|
|
RohanB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent wide angle quality though with some loss of definition at 12m
|
|
Cons:
|
Price is very heavy and I had to take a deep breath before making the investment
|
|
|
This is my standard lens and is rarely off my D70 whether for landscape or buildings. Sure at widest apeture there is some distortion but if I was an achitectural photographer I wouldn't be using this lense or this camera. Great for shooting street scenes from the hip. Although I resent the amount of money it cost the use and quality I have out of it makes it a worthwhile investment.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2006
|
|
leicafreund
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 12, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
It's wide, but thats all it is....
|
|
Cons:
|
CA (lots of it) poor detailing, lack of real sharpness...
|
|
|
Because they paid a lot of money for it, people feel the need to convince themselves they did the right thing by buying this lens,I can't believe people call this a great lens, I shoot a lot on 6x7 and scan my slides on an Epson scanner, completely a different world.
Not with other lenses, my 50 or 85 1.8 can compete with MF scans.
I've bought and sold a lot of gear over the last 25 years and never had regrets, whatever type or brand of cameras/lens...untill now. This lens is crap.
|
|
|
Feb 12, 2006
|
|
maljo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 1, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 402
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Really wide, very high optical quality, good build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Very slight purple fringing is the only drawback to this excellent lens.
One of my favorites.
I've had it now for six months and love it.
Used it extensively on a trip to Banff in August; wonderful
photos!
Highly recommended.
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2005
|
|
markgoldberg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Dec 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
I like how wide this one goes and its constant aperture design
|
|
Cons:
|
Pricey, hard to pack in my camera bag due to its flowered hard shade design. Some unusual distortion problems have been reported by testers; these would affect critical architectural photography.
|
|
|
I bought this after my changeover to digital, taking over the function that my 20mm prime had in my 35mm era. It was cheaper than what a 14mm prime which is what I would have needed to replace the 20mm. Now I have the equivalent of a 35mm camera's 18-36. I think zooms are more important in digital than in film because I want to reduce lens changes. Switching lenses makes for a danger or contaminating the sensor.
I had some post purchase regrets because the images were definitely not sharp. I was ready to return the lens, only to discover that one of my D70 bodies was off in its backfocus. The BF was fixed by Nikon and now I'm a happy camper. There were also some unusual M-type distortion problems reported which would affect architectural uses, but I am not doing those anyway. I have since obtained some correction actions in Photoshop.
My main gripe is that this lens is hard to carry in my small travel Lowepro bag mainly due to the flower design hard lens shade. It would have been nice to have a collapsible rubber or neoprene shade instead. This lens also required a thinner filter to avoid vignetting.
I have owned it about 17 months now, and since bought the 10.5 fisheye and the 17-55. When I look back over my social event jobs, at least 30% of the party and group shots got taken with this lens. That says something important. This lens works for me and puts money in my pocket.
|
|
|
Dec 6, 2005
|
|
drewgolden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,049.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
12mm, wide angle! This lens lets ou step back from a scene and catch the whole thing! It's a wide angle lens that the DLSRs have been waiting for.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price. Nikon is too proud of this lens.
|
|
|
This is a GREAT lens, but Nikon is too proud and want too much money for it. Let's get real, it's a DX lens (digital only) and they want $1200 for 12-24mm at f/4! F4 - come one! This should be a 2.8 at that price.
But people like me pay it. Why?
12mm.
It's wide, baby! If you do indoor work and need the whole room, this is the only Nikon game in town. There is a import version that gives you the same f/4 quality (Tonika?) but it's made out of bullet proof steel and weights 2x what the nikon plastic arrangement pounds in at.
I am torn. The lens is worth the grand. But I wonder how many times I will need the wide view. I am taking KenRockwell.com on his word that it's a keeper on the camera and not to worry about it.
At 12mm there is some obvious distortion that is easily fixable in post production. Half your shots can probably pass untouched. For the size / weight / dimentions I can not believe they could do no better than an f/4. But that being said, I could only imagine the pig it would take to weigh in a f/2 version of this lens.
If you like wide and are digital SLR, just go out and buy this lens. It's good, but you will need to get over the sticker shock, which I am still dealing with.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2005
|
|
James Markus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3842
|
|
Review Date: Sep 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light weight, sharp, good DOF, very needed wide angle for the digital cameras.
|
|
Cons:
|
expensive, not as fast as I'd like (f2.8 would be nice), quality varies.
|
|
|
I got this lens and I was immeditately disappointed. It was far softer than the reviews I had read had led me to believe. I tested a day, stewed a day, tested again...then headed back to the store and returned it. I asked to try another one...and it was even softer than the first one. I was toying with the idea of the Sigma 12-24mm, but they had one more Nikn in stock....so i tried a third lens. Now, that lens was exactly what I had expected the first time...very sharp...even good at 12mm at f4.0. So I swapped and now I'm a happy camper. I would normally give this lens a 10, but I had to try three lenses to find this "10" lens. I don't think that is acceptable. It may be that higher resolution cameras make even the slightest flaws more apparent, but they should tested the lens on cameras like that - before shipping to retailers. So, I'm giving it a 9.
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2005
|
|
jefflee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 748
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $930.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The range is what I wanted. The fact that you can use it FF for an 18-24mm is a big plus. Nikkor quality images - sharp, excellant contrast, and great color in real world shots. Like the close focus (actually have used it with my 500D, works well) and the feel of the lens. More expensive than the Tokina or Sigma's, but in the end it fits my needs and produces great images. Very fast focus on my D70. Replaces a 24 2.8 I used for a long time and at 24 I think the zoom is sharper
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost in comparison to the very good Tokina and Sigma products.
|
|
|
This is my second most used lens (300mm AFS f4 is most used). This is a fairly expensive lens when compared to the third party lenses, but this lens is what I wanted. The technical aspects of sharpness, color, and contrast are what one would expect from a first class Nikkor. I haven't shot at 12mm that much, but it seems very sharp at f8, haven't done much at f4 yet. At 14mm or so, very, very sharp and at 24mm fantastic.
It is an incredible tool for landscapes and cityscapes. The persepective you get with this lens will make you see differently. I knew I would get this lens, so I went for the 24-85 instead of the kit lens with the D70. If you shoot fine art shots, this is lens is a significant "brush" to have in your kit.
I've printed some 13 x 19 on my Epson 2400 and the image quality it there, I don't see light fall off and any CA issues (haven't seen any yet) can easily be corrected in CS2.
Yes it is more expensive than the other options, but this lens has proven itself to be a great tool. Would buy again without second thoughts.
|
|
|
Sep 3, 2005
|
|
jb_va2001
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide-wide-wide. An excellent ultra-wide zoom for Nikon's DSLRs. Sharp from 17mm-24mm. Fairly small & light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not f/2.8. Distortion at 12mm.
|
|
|
One of the industries first digital specific SLR lenses. It provides an ultra-wide perspective and good zoom range. Fairly light and small compared to f/2.8 glass. Sharpest from 17mm-24mm.
|
|
|
May 18, 2005
|
|
Julius
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 26, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 865
|
|
Review Date: Apr 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $930.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, quick focusing, excellent sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very slight softness at the corners at 12 mm up to f/8-11
|
|
|
This is my absolute favorite lens since I love wide angle shots and this lens is as good as it can be. Excellent resolution and sharpness across the whole field except at 12mm there is a slight softness at the very corners up to f/8 or f/11 but really not noticeable on the prints.
Excellent wide angle solution for the Nikon Digital Cameras.
|
|
|
Apr 9, 2005
|
|
joeholmes
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $949.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, fast and quiet auto-focus, great contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
more chromatic aberation than I would like. larger and heavier than I expected. pricey.
|
|
|
It's wonderful to have a DX ultra-wide, and the 12-24 zoom range is just right to make this a lens that I leave on the D70 for days at a time (only swapping it for the 18-70 for the occasional tele shot). To my eye, it's as sharp if not sharper than the 18-70 kit lens, and the contrast is top-notch throughout the range. The distortion at 12mm is perfectly acceptable (keep faces in the middle!), though chromatic aberation rears its ugly head with high contrast subjects at the edges of the frame. Those into filters should know that this takes a 77mm.
All in all, what a fine lens, though of course I'd rather have paid $500 than $1000.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2005
|
|
andrewlam
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 4, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 187
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
brings the super-wide range to digital, does not limit digital shooters to the 14mm, quiet AF operation, close focusing distance
|
|
Cons:
|
DX allows limited use on 35mm bodies, not f/2.8 and expensive for f/4, position of zoom and focus rings
|
|
|
I don't own this lens, but from rental use, I can comment. It provides a good wide range for digitals, and the glass performance is great. But it's a DX lens, and for those that still shoot film... Also it's expensive for an f/4 lens, and for that price I would expect slightly better build quality. My biggest complaint is personal. because the zoom and focus rings are reversed, quickly switching between bodies shooting sports is a pain. I'm sure I would get used to it eventually, but every other lens I use is the other way. If this lens is right for you, it's great.
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2005
|
|
crabtreec
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 19, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Nov 21, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
A real wide for Nikon's DX sensor, lightweight, AFS, solid - although plastic - build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
DX format, G type - lack of aperture ring, f4.
|
|
|
While I wish this lens was a bit more backward compatible with the classic Nikons in my collection, it has never failed to please me with it's results. This lens is my standard landscape choice, and performs admirably in that function.
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2004
|
|
superkoldby
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 17, 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 35
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice feel, build quality. sharp at all but the widest focal range.
|
|
Cons:
|
not f2,8, DX format!!!
|
|
|
I do a lot of indoor shooting, and since I started to go digital, I have missed a true wideangle for my D2h.
It is the lens that I use 70% of the time, and it has grown on me since I bought it used a month ago. I just wish it had'nt been that freakin' DX format, I would have liked to mount it on my F5...
It is not as sharp as I would have liked it to be, but it hasn't really let me down yet anyway.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: Denmark
|
|
Review Date: Jul 17, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
My bEsT Lens!!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: Denmark
|
|
Review Date: Jul 10, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $958.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
outstanding
|
|
Cons:
|
cost
|
|
|
Just purchased..shot 18 photos with outstanding results
Utilized Nikon Capture 4.1 and HP Photosmart7960 with outstanding
print results.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
39
|
148437
|
Nov 12, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
87% of reviewers
|
$914.59
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.56
|
7.00
|
8.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
