Nikon 12-24mm f/4 versus Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

W

WDWFigment

Member
I recently purchased the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 (for only $475!) after being unable to find the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for a decent price (sub $525 - I've read that it's been in short supply for a while, but I'm not willing to pay $599 for it). ; I know Craig did a review of the Tokina 11-16 for the site, but I wondered if anyone who has had hands on experience with both could offer a comparison. ;

I think the extra 1mm the Tokina offers would be nice (I find myself almost always using the 12mm end of the Nikon, and very rarely the 24mm end), as would the f/2.8 aperture. ; I'm almost wondering if I might be able to use the Tokina on dark rides with a higher ISO (3200 or 6400), or would it be too soft?

The only comparison I can find of the 11-16 and 12-24 I can find online right now is Ken Rockwell's, and uhhh...., I always seek a second opinion when he's involved.

Thanks for any help!

EDIT: ; This probably would've been better suited for "Equipment Reviews & Discussion," sorry for not thinking when I posted!
 
I have the 12-24, and i've rented the 11-16 to see if it was that much better then the Nikon. The 11-16 is nice in that it is sharper at f4 then the Nikon is, but really, for most ultra wide stuff, chances are you are stopping down anyway, and at that point, negate the speed of the lens. (Pixel peepers will be happier with the Tokina.)

As for fit and finish, the Nikon seems more solid, and I couldn't stand the lens cap on the Tokina (I'd replace it with a Nikon one if I purchased it). The 16mm limit of the Tokina wasn't that much of an issue, as you simply need to recompose your shot. I like both lenses, but I still favor the Nikon since I have not had good luck with third party lenses in general.

Either lens will complete a fine 3 lens bag for the parks: 18-200, 12-24/11-16, and the 35 1.8.
 
"mPower" said:
Either lens will complete a fine 3 lens bag for the parks: 18-200, 12-24/11-16, and the 35 1.8.
Click to expand...

Looks like I'm on the right track then, because that's pretty similar to the bag I'm carrying (18-200, 12-24, Sigma 30 1.4).

I guess this is a decent opportunity to ask another question: ; how do you like the 35 1.8? ; I'm considering selling the Sigma and getting it. ; I've heard some great things about it, but don't know if I'd miss the 5mm and extra 2/3(?) of a stop.
 
I'm just going to add a few things:

Good price for that lens! ; Nikon should be coming out with a new UWA for DX next week (10-24/3.5-4.5), so not sure if you needed the extra 3mm on the wide end or not.

2.8 is enough for some but not all of the dark rides. ; The harder/impossible ones need more speed.

main.php

30D, ISO 1600, 1/60 sec, f/2.8
 
Don't have the 35 1.8, but for DX, that's the lens you want. I had the Sigma 30 (if you bought it used from Jack's, it might have been mine! :) ), and I did not like it at all. Slow to focus, very soft images etc etc. Others have had success with the Sigma 30. Perhaps mine was a bad copy.

FWIW, I'm buying my mom her first DSLR and I'm getting her a D60 with the 55-200vr and the 35 1.8.

To add to what Roger mentioned, you can get away with 2.8 on Figment, Small World, and CoP, but forget about it on Pirates, SSE, HM etc.
 
"Roger" said:
2.8 is enough for some but not all of the dark rides. ; The harder/impossible ones need more speed.
Click to expand...

Right. ; I certainly wouldn't try it on Peter Pan, HM, or PotC, but I think it would have some use on the dark rides where the set scenes can be particularly close to you (Splash, IASW, brighter parts of SSE, etc). ; I've found myself wanting a lower focal length than 30mm on some of these attractions. ; Usually on most dark rides, I'm shooting wide open with the 30 1.4, but there are some where I stop down to around 2.8.

I'm just wondering how this looks at 2.8, because I've heard a lot of UWAs are really soft wide open.
 
There is no doubt that both the Nikon and the Tokina are softer then other f4s or f2.8s out there, but these lenses aren't really meant for shooting wide open to begin with.
 
I used to be of the school of thought that says that the F2.8 of the Tokina is pointless since you're just going to stop it down for landscapes. ; Then I.. well.. here, have a look.

I don't know if I could done this with an F4 lens. ; The key is I wanted the most light gathering capability that I could get. ; This was F2.8, ISO 3200, and 30 seconds. ; 30 seconds was pushing the limits of exposure time before star trailing starts becoming evident from the Earth's rotation, but I think it's a decent compromise between getting the most light gathered and still having the sky look sharp.

Really it still wasn't enough, I needed a tracking mount so I could use longer exposures, but I'm still pretty pleased with it. ; This just isn't something that I ever see where I live, according to a source of light pollution data there isn't a single place in my entire state that has skies as dark as where I took this (Northern Minnesota).

It's a specialized application, I'm sure it isn't relevant to lot of people's shooting styles, but I'm a fan of night photography and it's quite relevant there. ; Even when you're taking pictures of terrestrial scenes from a tripod it's still useful to bring the shutter speed down, it gets mighty old standing around waiting for 30 second exposures to finish while you're trying to block any ambient light from getting into the viewfinder by shading it. ; And while I know you typically want it stopped down to widen the DOF, my crude experiments to date seem to suggest that F2.8 can be adequate for many types of shots.

I stress crude, I still don't know my way around landscape shooting and you shouldn't take my impressions thus far too firmly.

[attachment deleted by admin]
 
I would also like to share the joy of f2.8 at 11mm!

For this first one at the Calif Grill, I was able to use shutter priority at 1/90 to freeze the action in the kitchen, allowing the camera to choose iso and the f2.8.
[attachimg=1]

For these next two, I chose f2.8. Also, these are both enlarged to 16x24 and hanging.
[attachimg=2]
[attachimg=3]

And this one is 20x30 and hanging.
[attachimg=4]

This one is on the list for future printing. this is also f2.8, but 16mm.
[attachimg=5]



[attachment deleted by admin]
 
oh yeah, i'm so glad to hear about the large contemporary print, i remember posting up when you went public with that shot that it truly deserved wall space
that is your personal glory craig, you've got a lot of good work, but that does it for me all the way
composition, lighting, color, it's the real deal
 
Craig, those shots are fantastic!

For the record, the only reason I didn't get the Tokina 12-24 f/4 was because by the time I had rented it, decided to buy and saved up the money, Tokina announced the 11-16 f/2.8 for a price I felt was a good one.

I have throughly enjoyed the extra humpf of the 11mm on my DX camera body.
 
Okay.. I HAVE to comment on that Merchant of Venus shot.

The electric blue of the sky is an excellent match to the red neon. ; It's absolutely perfect. ; I'm close to wanting to say it looks too artificially saturated.. but.. it works so well that the impact overrides that impression.

I say this as a long time fan of the visual style of Tomorrowland at night. ; I just hang out there and take in the glorious neon.
 
"Craig" said:
I forgot to say Congrats! Thats a great price for that lens
Click to expand...

Thanks! ; Between this lens and the D90, I've really cleaned up lately. ; I still want to switch to the Tokina 11-16, though. ; I figure the price will start to drop a little, or at least it will be more readily available, with the announcement of Nikon's 10-24.

Speaking of congrats--congrats on those great pictures! ; You've definitely given me some inspiration!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top