Nikon14-24 vs Tokina 10-24

[dondiego]

Howdy:

Welcome!!!

How good is the Tokina Lens comparing with the Nikon. In Europe the Tokina was selected over the nikon. Of course it cost half the price $1,000,00 vs $500.00

Don

[Whiplash-GT]

i can't seem to find anything on the Tokina 10-24
10-17 or 12-24 maybe??

[dondiego]

SORRRYYY, and thank you for the observation whiplashGT.

The lenses are 12-24 on both Nikon and Tokina.

Good thing I don't drink or smoke other wise people will think I was hi :D

Don

[Whiplash-GT]

no worries, it's cool :)

it's only a couple hundred dollars different locally, so i'd opt for the Nikon myself maybe for just the warranty alone (Nikon=5 yrs.)
both are F4, and i'm a bit of a brand whore when i'm able

me, i'd probably (and did) check out the Sigma 10-20 as well as an option
that one WAS 1/2 the price in my area and has hsm as well so it'll work on my wife's D40


now if it came down my being able to afford the Nikon 14-24 i wouldn't second guess that purchase :) (all in time :) )

[lexcell]

I too, prefer sticking with the manufacturers own lenses whenever possible.

If your budget won't allow for the Nikon 12-24mm, the Tokina is a good option. They are both f4, both focus to 11.8", both have the ED/AT-X glass and both are for DX cameras.

There may be a compatibility issue depending on the camera as Whiplash mentions, the Tokina won't AF on a Nikon D40/D40X for example

[PAtony]

I'm sure I read a lens test for the Tokina in Pop Photo not long ago and yes it was very nice and the price was lower, but it's resolution wasn't as good as Nikon's at higher enlargements. This might not be a problem if you don't do any enlargements past a 4 x 6 or 8 x 10. I've also read that Tokina focus slower than Nikon. Buy the Nikon or if you don't you might always be wondering how the photo would look like if you had used a Nikon lens.:rolleyes:

[Bob_Benner]

I Owned the Tokina 12-24mm lens and it is a very nice high quality product. It would be hard for the average photographer to tell the difference in image quality between the Tokina and the Nikon, unless you are a pixel peeper. As far as it not being good at higher resolution, that is a bunch of BS. I have a print that measures 16x24 inches that was shot using the Tokina and it is beautifull and tack sharp so you can print much larger than 8x10 when using this lens:D. If you can afford the Nikon then go for it you won't be sorry. But if saving a a few hundred dollars and getting almost the same quality images matters then go with the Tokina. The only reason I sold mine was because I really do not shoot that wide anymore. If I needed another wide angle lens I would not hesitate to purchase the Tokina again.

[Bob_Benner]

Tokina also has a new lens coming out. It is a 11-16mm f/2.8 DX wide angle lens. I might have to get back into wide angle shooting now.

[Bob_Benner]

Well, looks like the Tokina 12-24mm f/4.0 will be in my bag again soon. I miss the close up portraits with it.

[epaul6]

Howdy:

Welcome!!!

How good is the Tokina Lens comparing with the Nikon. In Europe the Tokina was selected over the nikon. Of course it cost half the price $1,000,00 vs $500.00

Don

I can't speak to the Tokina wide angle zoom, but I have a Tokina 100mm, 2.8 macro which is a great lens. It is a pro build meaning it is mostly a metal frame and barrel. It is also a full frame lens in case I ever decide to go to the 35mm digital format. Built like a tank. However as with all macro lenses you do need to use a tripod for true macro 1:1 shots.