 |
|
|
jyo1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 2, 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 59
|
|
Review Date: Sep 8, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Mine is usefully sharp at indoor events---shot many with this lens on D7100 and old reliable D300---I am not selling mine...
|
|
Cons:
|
I really have no real issues with my sample, but another photographer friend bought one after trying mine and reported it was not sharp and did not like it on his D300 for travel pics---he sold it...
|
|
|
I wanted something wider than what I owned (used 30-35 F2.8 on FX film cameras) for my DX bodies---a really mint used example came my way at a decent price---used it in variety of indoor events---liked it VERY much---bright and sharp most everywhere (mostly used with SB800 flash)---just a great lens for this kind of work. You can see a little distortion (fisheye effect at wide end) if you don't hold it level and pay attention to what you're doing...
|
|
 Sep 8, 2015
|
|
shelbystripes
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 43
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2014
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Gives you extra wide shooting on digital
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive, soft especially at 12mm, minimum focal distance is high
|
|
|
I have this lens, and its performance is acceptable. You can get some unpleasant distortion at the 12mm end, especially when shooting wide open in certain lighting conditions; it's less noticeable in some situations than others. It feels plasticky, especially compared to the classic solid Nikon lenses that gave you things like "real" focus rings, but it's not the cheapest-feeling lens that Nikon makes and I'm not afraid it'll break or anything.
I would recommend this lens if the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 didn't exist. It's a little cheaper, a little wider and faster, and will give you images of the same or better sharpness. This lens is not bad, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'd only recommend it if it's cheaper than getting the Tokina.
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2014
|
|
paparazzinick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7895
|
|
Review Date: Nov 12, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
This is one of my all time favorites in the nikon lens lineup. A must have in your bag. I shoot weddings in Pittsburgh and this lens is used 50% of the time when I need a wide angle lens. Check out some samples on my site taken with this lens. http://nbombichstudios.com
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2012
|
|
Digital Gold
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 17, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, Build Quality, ultra wide, mega sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
a bit of distorting at 12-14mm.
|
|
When using my D2X or other DX sensor cameras my favorite ultra wide lens is always the 12-24mm. I love the sharpness and overall image quality. I usually use this lens when I'm doing rolling shots for automotive shoots. It lets me get super close to the cars for maximum details.
To see some examples please visit my website and photography blog: http://digitalgoldphotography.com
Feel free to reach out to me with any specific questions.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2011
|
|
bgorum
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 270
|
|
Review Date: Sep 21, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good resistance to flare, great color and contrast, sharp everywhere at long end and in center at short end
|
|
Cons:
|
Corners at short end are soft, doesn't focus nearly close enough
|
|
|
I purchased this lens used and had problems with really unsharp corners. I did some testing and determined the lens was de-centered. Sent it in to Nikon for repair and it came back better, but I still think the corners are soft at the wide end, even when well stopped down. Part of the problem appears to actually be do to field curvature. If you focus using the center focus brackets and then recompose to put your subject towards one of the corners it will be out of focus do to curvature of field, (this is only at close focusing distances, I can't really speak for how it performs at infinity since I never use it there). So now I always focus using the focusing area as close to where the subject will be placed as possible and that helps a lot, but corners are still noticeably softer than the center at the 12mm end. On the plus side only a photographer would notice the unsharpness. The lens has great color and contrast, so to most people the pictures look good! It's resistance to flare is better than any other wide angle I've owned too! I use this lens mostly for photographing reptiles and amphibians in the landscape and find that for many smaller species the lens does not focus close enough (12" mfd). I'd like them to be larger in the frame than what this lens can achieve at the wide end.
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2010
|
|
williamkazak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6445
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very wide. Not too large. Light weight is good and makes the lens easy to hold and to use. No flare.
|
|
Cons:
|
Large lens shade and 77mm filter size. Price. No focus scales.
|
|
|
I finally got myself a real wide angle lens. Even though I am a prime lens fan, I traded a guy who went completely FX my 20mm F2.8 and $200 for this lens. On DX, 20mm is not really wide so I knew that I was missing out. This lens is so wide that it is fun and creative. As a wedding photographer, I need to watch how wide I go so as not to distort people on the edges when using this lens. Nevertheless, I just shoot and I hope my WA maturity will develop soon. Picture quality is great. No flare issues so far. I had an 18-70 and it flared too much so I got rid of it. General shooting, especially indoors, is so nice to do with this lens and F4 shooting has not bothered me because I often use an SB800 flash but F5.6 is definitely a sweet spot here. I actually tried the D300 popup flash with this lens and it worked with no cutoff. I still cannot believe that. I don't like the huge lens shade. It makes the lens seem huge when it is really not that big. The front glass is very close to the plastic outer ring, so using a shade is mandatory. Lightweight means that I have no problem bringing the lens with me on location and holding it. I wish it were 72mm filter size to match the 180mm and the 105 DC lenses. You have to try this lens to see for yourself what it can do for you. Landscape shooters-why would you use a zoom? A zoom is for fast moving subjects.
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2009
|
|
rereanimator
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2009
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 16, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Quality
|
|
Cons:
|
price
|
|
|
Good optics, fast, well done lens
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2009
|
|
dave chilvers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1702
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
No flare into the sun, no CA as I can see.well built.
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
It always amazes me just how varied the reviews are on any lens. All I can say is that my copy is absolutely stellar. I`ve got the 10-22 Canon and (in my tests) the 12-24 has the edge. The corners are very sharp (similar to the results on my Sony [email protected] the wide end) and we all know what a class lens that is. I`ve got a Canon 17-40 and the edges are well ahead on the Nikon. I`m really satisfied and have total confidence when I mount it on the D200.It reminds me a little of my Leica M series days and that`s saying something.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2007
|
|
Kaj E
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1203
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
A very sharp lens with excellent color and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not weather sealed.
|
|
|
A truly excellent wide angle lens for the DX format.
Unfortunately there seems to be quite a bit of sample variation with this as well as other lenses in this focal length range. My first copy was soft at the extreme corners at 12mm and f/4. The second copy is great all over.
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2007
|
|
saron
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 9, 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent ultrawide.
|
|
Cons:
|
DX, F4 instead of F2.8, soft focus when filter attached, soft in the corners
|
|
|
I use this lens for landscape and for interiors. Good DOF and when used for HDR, nothing can touch it.
It is one of the few ultrawide lens that can have a filter attached, however, I found that even with a Nikon filter attached, there is a noticeable softness in focus and CA shows up around light sources. A c.pol. makes it worse than the UV filter. No problems with a sharp focus or CA when I use it without a filter.
I really hope that Nikon comes out with a f2.8 non-DX version.
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2007
|
|
HaakenG
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 20, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $915.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautiful image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
It's not inexpensive!
|
|
|
Seriously thought about the Sigma but ultimately decided to buy the Nikkor and I am extremely pleased that I did. Image quality is stunning from my copy. I have no issues with sharpness whatsoever. Color and contrast are excellent. Balances nicely on my D40 and I am quite happy with the build quality. I also have a Canon dSLR and have owned the 10-22 and the Nikon build is definitely an improvement and in my sample at least the image quality is better from the Nikkor.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2007
|
|
Dave_D
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2006
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Dec 4, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
True ultrawide focal range for DSLRs
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality is not commensurate to it's price.
|
|
|
I've used the Canon equivalent (EF-S 10-22) for it's cropped sensor cameras. Sad to say, I really found the Canon unit sharper and with less distortion and chromatic aberration than the Nikkor 12-24 F4.
If your really into ultrawides, I really don't think you can do worse with Tokina's 12-24 for half the price.
If it would be priced more reasonably, I would recommend it.
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2006
|
|
Kit Laughlin
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 7, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 4247
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
12–24 range, useful speed, feeling of quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Simply not sharp. I tested this back-to-back with a Tokina 12-24. The latter is sharper, and the wide end has less barrel distortion.
|
|
|
Following Ken Rockwell's glowing review (and both liking and needing real wide angles in my work) I had just budgeted for this lens—Nikon uses a 1.5 crop factor sensor, after all.
From the reviews here, there seems to be great sample variation. In my case. literally none of the images I shot in decent light and at fast shutter speeds on the D200 were acceptably sharp.
On the other hand, a cheap ($750 AUD) lens, the Tokina 12-24, is perfectly sharp and has astonishingly good correction of distortion at the wide end. I shot in the same location, same day (so same light) and same body. I took the images back to the studio and compared. They were cheese and chalk, as we say over here.
Following, I shot a series of hotel interiors over the weekend, and have not corrected any of them for lens distortion. CA is also significantly better corrected on this 'cheapo' lens than on the Nikkor.
Again, all this could be down to sample variation—so if you are considering buying one of these, make sure you test it properly first.
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006
|
|
waterflyboy22
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 758
|
|
Review Date: Sep 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
It's good to have wide angles again. Nikon overall quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not built like a Nikon pro lens, even though it has the pro price. It SHOULD be f/2.8, and it would be nice to have a longer reach on the zoom (50-70mm)
|
|
|
Even with the chromatic issue in the really wide areas of this lens, it is still fantastic addition to your bag that does almost all that it should.
My copy is sharp at most settings, even though it needs to be stopped down when really wide.
Only having f/4 keeps you from truly taking advantage of this lens and its capabilities. It can hunt to focus.
Overall, if you want wide on your DSLR, this is the one to have when compared to 3rd party offerings.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2006
|
|
beluga
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 3, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
A great range in wide angle zoom now available in digital SLR format.
|
|
Cons:
|
Chromatic error all over the place!!! Overall softness to all photos, even at the 24 setting.
|
|
|
I'm afraid I must agree with our friend from the Netherlands, this is indeed a poor lens. Most of the positive reviews show tests of old buildings, nicely lit against a blue sky background. Not a great challenge for any lens. My results taken with fill flash and shooting towards the sun or bright sky left me speechless. The worst lens from Nikkor I have ever come across. Chromatic errors are so extreme that i'm still too upset to talk about it. But there is more obvious things wrong. The lens has an overall softness to it. It never comes close to sharpness of the 17-35. In fact, it falls below results i got using the cheap little 18-35. My opinion is based on results after having taken over 1000 photos usiing the 12-24. I heard of someone saying they needed to try 3 of these before finding one that was good. Maybe I have a lemon, which brings up Nikon's lack of quality control. But that's another story.
|
|
|
Aug 3, 2006
|
|
LeifG
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 16, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1710
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb between about 18mm and 24mm. Flare resistant.
|
|
Cons:
|
Far corners at 12mm are awful even at F11 and don't improve until 14mm. Slight softness at the wide end, even stopped down. Only F4 so focussing not always easy.
|
|
|
This lens has lovely image quality between about 18mm and 24mm where contrast and sharpness are excellent between F8 and F16. Sadly the wide end is not so good. At 12mm the far corners are very poor even when stopped down, though I suppose they can be cropped, and sharpness is not really as high as I would like. By 14mm the bad corners have gone, and sharpness is improving. There is a little CA at the wide end but it is easily removed by Nikon Capture. Similarly distortion can be removed with PTLens. A nice lens, but not the APS answer to the 17-35mm F2.8 AFD. Not quite a home run.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
38
|
174313
|
Sep 8, 2015
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
84% of reviewers
|
$888.15
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.45
|
7.10
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
