DSLRUsers.com

My first outing with 12-24DX - 2 pix for you to see from downtown Brisbane today:

Above photo taken at our City Hall. You can see the time on the clock - used CPF. 12mm @f9 - wb & levels adjustment


This one in Mall. 17mm @ f6.3 - wb & levels adjustment

My early thoughts:

great contrast
fairly sharp
significant distortion at wider end, as expected
great balance on the camera - feels not unlike kit lens

Trevor

Trevor, when you see that first shot you realise it fits a lot in the frame!

Great shots Trevor and as Glen said you see a lot through the viewfinder. Well it looks like a Nikon/Sigma fight is on.

Chris

Thanks Glen & Chris.
I just know we'll see some terrific W/A shots on the forum.
I note that there are more than a few Sigmas, as well as some Nikons. Very few pix so far though!
Let's hope we get to see more soon.
Cheers
Trevor

Trevor, pick mine up tomorrow

Glen wrote:Trevor, pick mine up tomorrow

Beauty bottler mate!

G'day Trevor,
Wow, that first pic... I love the wide angle stuff, that 12-24 is hubba hubba...

Hmmm, maybe I should look away now, my bankcard is only just starting to heal from my last splurge... Doh!

Thanks for the example pics, it's always good to see some real examples from the toys we all want...

Cheers,
Mudder

mudder wrote:G'day Trevor,
Wow, that first pic... I love the wide angle stuff, that 12-24 is hubba hubba...

Cheers,
Mudder

G'day mudder

These two pix from the first use of the 12-24 lens today. Took about 10 shots (had limited time) but it's very easy to handle. I was a bit concerned about the speed, f4 as you know, but probably will not be an issue outdoors anyway.
I'm really impressed with the contrast ,and I tried a couple into harsh light and so far, no issue with flaring or PF.
I'll keep testing!

Trevor

I was hoping to have a look at this at Birddog's tomorrow, but I'm pretty sold already after seeing the town hall pic

stubbsy wrote:Trevor

I was hoping to have a look at this at Birddog's tomorrow, but I'm pretty sold already after seeing the town hall pic

Stubbsy,
Count with you bunch of green colour plastic bills, you can try on my Nikon 12-24/ Glen Sigma 12-24.
And pick up one brand new Nikon 12-24 go to the workshop at the end of the day.

I have one of the 12-24 lenses and it is the lens that finds itself attached to the camera the most. I love the wide angle of this lens and it's ease of use.

If you get one you will not be dissapointed. Mine is the Nikkon.

I spent some time in the desert over the break and have some great shots with this lens, I only wish I had more time to pp these.

Cheers,

Darryl.

Darryl, just pp one or two you like. I think you are right, the desert and that field of view would be a great combo, cant wait to see some of your shots. Whereabouts did you go?

Guys,


What is the comparison between the Sigma 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24? Besides the price. I'm thinking about the Sigma, as it's within my budget.

Alistair

AlistairF wrote:Guys,


What is the comparison between the Sigma 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24? Besides the price. I'm thinking about the Sigma, as it's within my budget.

Alistair

Hi Alistair

I have the Sigma and cricketfan has the Nikon. They are both good lens. As Glen has pointed out there is slightly more barrel distortion on the Nikon but it can be corrected PP. The Sigma can also be used on full frame cameras whereas the Nikon is digital only. The Nikon has the advantage of being able to take a front element filter but the Sigma can’t.

Price difference around $400.

Chris

Thanks, The nikon sounds nice, but for that extra $400... The quality of the sigmas 12-24 pics look great, but no ability to fit a CP filter.

I ws also looking at the Sigma 15mm fixed a while back, but the zoon looks like the go now.

I'm off for a holiday to NZ South Island in Feb... i want to make sure I have a nice wide lens for all the photo ops. I've also built myself a panoramic mount.. i'll post pics soon.

Alistair

Hi Alistair
Yes, Chris beat me to the punch, I have not seen or used the Sigma, and I have really only fired a few shots with my Nikon, so at best I can only repeat what others have said.

You will find a fair bit of comparative info in the Nikon SLR Lens Talk on dpreview.com.

From what I remember, Chris has it about spot-on.
If you have seen some of the shots around here from both lenses, you'll probably agree that there is not a lot of difference in overall quality.

If you are looking to take mainly architechtural pix, I think there is a case for the lesser distortion of the Sigma. If you will be taking mainly outdoors landscape-type pix, then the concensus may be Nikon because of its ability to take filters.

Good luck with your deliberations.
Trevor

Alistair,

AlistairF wrote:Guys,


What is the comparison between the Sigma 12-24 and the Nikon 12-24? Besides the price. I'm thinking about the Sigma, as it's within my budget.

Alistair

The Nikon, too, is within your budget.

You may need to revisit some of the other numbers in the budget too, btw.

Just my 2 cents. I had a good play today with both the Sigma & Nikon 12-24

I bought the Nikon so here's why (compared to Sigma):

1. Faster
2. Lighter
3. Can take filters
4. It says Nikon on the outside

Having said this - would I have settled for the Sigma if money was tight - yes since it's an excellent lens too.

As an aside I had some discussions this morning at our meet about these two lenses and the relative levels of edge distortion. I take landscape and not architectural shots and see no qualitative difference between the two - your mileage may vary

Cheers

Alistair

It is always interesting reading other forum members comments on a particular lens. Stubbsy chose weight, faster lens, can take filters and the Nikon name. Strangely enough I liked the extra weight because I can keep the camera and lens more steady. If you check out another thread I posted on the Sigma you will see a shot taken ar 1/20th hand held in very difficult light conditions, hence not worried about speed of the lens. Filters are the only thing that the Sigma lacks (front mounted) but if you check out another thread on this forum you will see that a lot of members like to take the filter off when taking photos.

Nikon - well I have used Nikon cameras and lens for forty years but I do like to make choices which are within budget and try and get the best for what I can afford whether it be Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or whatever. Gary is renowned for not entertaining anything other than Nikon and I respect him for his choice, but that is what it is all about, choice.

Here is a link to a Sigma review



http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=photography&zu=http%3A%2F%2F194.100.88.243%2Fpetteri%2Fpont%2FReviews%2Fa_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6%2Fa_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html

and a Nikon review:

http://www.bythom.com/1224lens.htm

Stubbsy and cricketfan have Nikons and Glen and I have Sigmas and I am sure that we will all be happy using these lens to show their potential.

Chris

stubbsy wrote:As an aside I had some discussions this morning at our meet about these two lenses and the relative levels of edge distortion. I take landscape and not architectural shots and see no qualitative difference between the two - your mileage may vary

Funny you mentioned that stubbsy, there was talk about the Nikon having more distortion than the Sigma. However I have one image which surprised me, it was with Glen's Sigma shot at 20mm. There was IMHO quite noticeable pincushion distortion - and the Sigma is supposed to be the better of the two. I'll post the image, along with some more from the meet - when Pixspot is up again. It's currently dodgy and SQL error'ing on me.

Okay, now I'm getting slightly confused.. as soon as I settle that the Nikon 12-24 looks like a really good lens that accepts filters, and convinced my wife that it would be a good investment in our future , I see that Tokina have released a 12-24.

Has anyone had any feedback or experience with this Tokina 12-24 zoom lens? I see some positive feedback on some forums and it's around half the cost of the Nikon.

Yeah, the Tokina would add an interesting mix into the equation. It's currently priced at $499 at B&H, which is fantastic... but its image quality is yet to be seen.

You have to read this on the Tokina 12-24mm F4 AT-X Pro Dx it is the most hysterical translation from Japanese I have ever read:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.geocities.jp/tanase_kanagawa/PAGE2/LENZ/LENZ.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3DTokina%2B12-24mm%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

Chris

Edit: Apparently contraction feather quantity means the number of shutter blades!!!

Onyx wrote:but its image quality is yet to be seen.

And I suspect that is the way it will remain.

Sorry, but it's a Tokina.

sirhc55 wrote:Edit: Apparently contraction feather quantity means the number of shutter blades!!!

And I doubt that Tokina lenses have shutters in them.

I think one should pay attention to the how much money they seem to have spent on translating their product information into English, given that the majority of their market will, one way or another, be speaking that language.

I definitely fall on the gstark side of the ledger when it comes to the glass I am prepared to stack on my Nikon camera.
I will own up to a fair degree of prejudice left over from my prehistoric film-shooting days, when the likes of Tamron, Sigma and Tokina were shunned by serious photographers.
I know that Sigma especially, and probably Tamron too, have improved a lot. You only have to read the reviews from reputable photographic sites to realise that.
But, I still resist the marketing and financial signals and stick with Nikon lenses. I can't help but think that the Nikon heritage (I would be the same with Canon or Olympus, had I gone down that track initially) does have its merits.
I hasten to add that my decision is right for my circumstances, and I know plenty of other photographers will make their decisions for their own reasons.
At the end of the day, it is the photographer in us all that makes the images, not the equipment.
Tiger Woods would still beat me easily at golf, even using my mother's old clubs!

Always remember OEM - can you ever be sure that the name on a piece of equipment means that it was manufactured by the named company.

The biggest liars in history are the biggest corporations!!!!

Chris

cricketfan wrote:Tiger Woods would still beat me easily at golf, even using my mother's old clubs!

Tiger Woods would still beat me easily at golf, even using my 70-300G instead of clubs!

Gary wrote:I think one should pay attention to the how much money they seem to have spent on translating their product information into English

Gary, to be fair you need to look at the URL - it's Google doing the translating not the company.

But I still bought the Nikon

Peter,

stubbsy wrote:

Gary wrote:I think one should pay attention to the how much money they seem to have spent on translating their product information into English

Gary, to be fair you need to look at the URL - it's Google doing the translating not the company.

Are you telling me that the company hasn't even bothered to create an English webpage for the product?

Thanx for making my point so well, even though that probably wasn't your intention.

Good choice in your purchasing, anyway.

Gary

Warked rite into that wun

sirhc55 wrote:Always remember OEM - can you ever be sure that the name on a piece of equipment means that it was manufactured by the named company.
Chris

Yeah, that is true Chris.
But, usually when an item is manufactured externally under licence to the product owner, specifications are adjusted to the owners requirements, and may be different to the specs that the manufacturer uses for its own products.
I hope that isn't as unintelligible as it looks!
Trevor

Any of the 12 - 24 DX owners:
Could you please measure the diameter of the diameter of the hood on the lens please?
If any of you have the lens off the camera, could you please measure the length from the cap to the rear cover (hood in reversed position)?

I'm cutting/pucking the foam in a Storm case. I don't have a 12-24 yet and I just want to make sure I leave enough room..
thanks,
Nick

onimod,

the dimension of 12-24Dx is here:

http://www.maxwell.com.au/products/niko ... 12-24.html

and the 70-200VR on the other is her here:

http://www.maxwell.com.au/products/niko ... afsvr.html

thanks Birddog, but the hood diameters are larger than the given lens dimensions in the Nikon information and therefore it's the hoods that I need to allow the space for. I can't be sure those dimensions allow for the end caps either, but this is less critical.
I originally was going to just put my D70, 18-70, Markins head and 12-24 in the case, but I think with a little careful planning I can get the future 70-200 in there too.
So I still would like those hood diameters at least
thanks,
Nick

onimod wrote:thanks Birddog, but the hood diameters are larger than the given lens dimensions in the Nikon information and therefore it's the hoods that I need to allow the space for. I can't be sure those dimensions allow for the end caps either, but this is less critical.
I originally was going to just put my D70, 18-70, Markins head and 12-24 in the case, but I think with a little careful planning I can get the future 70-200 in there too.
So I still would like those hood diameters at least
thanks,
Nick

Nick,
What case are you going to use, the hoods of those lenses can be mounted reversed in storage, so the space of the hoods are very minimal.

And I don't often use the hoods, except in very bright sunlight or at some events which I have to shoot with the light facing to the cam.

Birddog114 wrote:And I don't often use the hoods, except in very bright sunlight or at some events which I have to shoot with the light facing to the cam.

Totally agree, but I still want the hoods in the box for when they might be needed, and I realise they take up minimal space, but it still might make the difference between fitting everything or not. I know it seems pedantic, but it really is that tight. The foam is scored into 1/2 inch squares, so if the lens is a little bigger than planned and I have to remove another whole half inch strip.
I'll post a 'how to' and finished pics once I've got it done.

onimod wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:And I don't often use the hoods, except in very bright sunlight or at some events which I have to shoot with the light facing to the cam.

Totally agree, but I still want the hoods in the box for when they might be needed, and I realise they take up minimal space, but it still might make the difference between fitting everything or not. I know it seems pedantic, but it really is that tight. The foam is scored into 1/2 inch squares, so if the lens is a little bigger than planned and I have to remove another whole half inch strip.
I'll post a 'how to' and finished pics once I've got it done.

onimod,
1/ I do not understand why should you need that storage case, perhaps it's special purpose built for you to be ready to board one of the NASA Shuttle heading to MARS from Kennedy launch pad in Florida:lol:
2/ Any advantage in doing that way and what's happened if you have more lenses and flash after?
3/ how do you carry it, which way, backpack, carry case?
I have no ideas and never seen it, do you need an assistant to look after and handle the case for you? I'm ready!

Birddog114 wrote:onimod,
1/ I do not understand why should you need that storage case, perhaps it's special purpose built for you to be ready to board one of the NASA Shuttle heading to MARS from Kennedy launch pad in Florida:lol:
2/ Any advantage in doing that way and what's happened if you have more lenses and flash after?
3/ how do you carry it, which way, backpack, carry case?
I have no ideas and never seen it, do you need an assistant to look after and handle the case for you? I'm ready!
3/

haha
I think it's like most things - I don't really NEED it, just want it.
It's a storm case: http://www.stormcase.com/
I prefer a hard case so I can toss it in the car or take it on a plane and not have to worry about the protection of the gear inside. I realise like any bag I may outgrow it, but that's what I'm trying to plan for - to fit as much of my future planned purchases as possible. (I think I forgot to mention the SB800 above)
I plan to be able to fit the body, 3 lenses, flash, ball head and charger, but it might only be 2 lenses if those hoods are a little wider than I hope.
The foam is perforated and I only get one shot at removing bits, so I'm trying as hard as I can to get it right the first time, and it's tough to plan for those lenses which I don't own yet.

I and most members have the minitrekker II AW and we can toss it in the car, took along with us in many trips, comfy on our back and use as a soft pillow in camping trips, part from those, the bag can carry tripod, monopod and some other goodies as light jacket, torch, water bottle and it's useful for daily use of the photogs.

The hard case (We had a thread before) is only good for transit and is not comfy and useful for daily use, you have to handcarry it everywhere and it attracts to the bad guys.

Transit is the big thing I need it for - I have other bags too. I mostly prefer a cheast harness, or just keep the camera around the neck. I feel much safer with the GF using the camera with the hard case - she flies often too. It's not really for daily use - it's a storage box with mostly everything in it - just grab and go.

Onimod, the diameter of the hood is approx 109mm and total length is 241mm approx. That is the 70-200, don't have the 12-24, too much barrell distortion for me (joke), I went Sigma.

Glen wrote:Onimod, the diameter of the hood is approx 109mm and total length is 241mm approx. That is the 70-200, don't have the 12-24, too much barrell distortion for me (joke), I went Sigma.

The Sigma can't go into the case which Onimod wants, cos the its size is double the Nikon, on another side, the Sigma has the platinum band and won't stay in the case with the gold band series:cry:

Birddog114 wrote: on another side, the Sigma has the platinum band and won't stay in the case with the gold band series:cry:

Glen wrote:Onimod, the diameter of the hood is approx 109mm and total length is 241mm approx. That is the 70-200, don't have the 12-24, too much barrell distortion for me (joke), I went Sigma.

that's great - thankyou Glen

Well Glen has thrown down the gauntlet on this one...

The 12-24 DX NIKON glass (bewtiful) with hood mounted is 120mm long and 115mm diameter.

Barrel distortion? What barrel distortion?

stubbsy wrote:Well Glen has thrown down the gauntlet on this one...

The 12-24 DX NIKON glass (bewtiful) with hood mounted is 120mm long and 115mm diameter.

Barrel distortion? What barrel distortion?

Peter - just look at the Nikon label on the lens and you will see that it is curved - owner of Sigma 12-24mm

Stubbsy, well done on the measuring, but you forgot to measure the big distortion on the 12-24DX, give onimod that, he may not fit it in his case!

Chris, Glen

You guys have me worried. Did I buy the wrong lens?

Oh, phew, I was having a nightmare - thought I'd bought the sigma!