DSLRUsers.com

Taking quality and price into consideration.

Already have , I chose the Tokina 12-24 and I am very happy with it.

For the money, it is hard to beat. I find that it is very sharp, quick to focus (not a big deal when doing landscapes) and did I say that the price is right

It does take some getting used to, and I'm trialling all types of situations to use it in.

Maybe one day I'll get the Nikkor 12-24, but for now, it can wait, I'll get other lenses instead.

Cheers,

Andre

Phillip I have and would choose again the Nikon 12-24. Though my second choice would be the Tokina 12-24
cheers
marco

I currently have the Sigma 12-24 but would probably grab the Tokina if I was doing it all over again, if only because it's cheaper and produces similar results for my purposes.

I have the Sigma and I am more than happy with it (12-24mm)

Having read the latest wide angle roundup the Sigma 10-20 came first over I think all the other lens listed here. I haven't played with one myself yet, but I have a fair bit of confidence in the review.

I recently got rid of my Sigma 12-24 to get the Sigma 10-20

Alpha_7 wrote:Having read the latest wide angle roundup the Sigma 10-20 came first over I think all the other lens listed here. I haven't played with one myself yet, but I have a fair bit of confidence in the review.

Craig, which review is that? have you got a link to it?

I go with Nikkor 12-24 and always with Nikkor 12-24

Phillip, the review was actually the feature review in Novemeber's 'Digital Photo' magazine a UK mag I picked up while on holidays.

Not sure if they have a online presence to access the same information.

Like others I'm happy with my Tokina 12-24. I've included a link which was taken from the middle of the shot but taken at f4, no sharpening in photoshop.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v717/ ... er/100.jpg

Very happy with how sharp the lens is. I am surprised at the lack of DOF in this given that it was taken at 12mm, I guess it is due to how close it was to the camera though.

I haven't used any of the others, but the Tokina gets my vote.

phillipb wrote:Taking quality and price into consideration.

Taking those factors into consideration, the Tokina by a mile. Money no object: the Nikkor.

I got the Sigma 12-24 and am happy with it, but I now would go with the Sigma 10-20.
Cheers,
Gerard

Vote for the Tokina 12 -24, fairly cheap, good built quality and it's good to shoot with a lens that remains sharp wide-open.

Link.

Hmm if it came down to choice seeing some other members examples of the Tokina 12 -24 I must give it the thumbs up.

Compared to the Nikon and examples posted here are also very impressive, with a beginners eye I can't seem to tell the difference

But going by price and affordability the Tokina wins , depends on circumstances I guess. I ain't a landscape person, but ain't going to rule it out either on the odd occasion.

Link wrote:Vote for the Tokina 12 -24, fairly cheap, good built quality and it's good to shoot with a lens that remains sharp wide-open.

Link.

Link,
It ain't cheap when you add the right CPL to it.

Just got the Tokina, it does the job. But if I had the extra $$ I would get the nikon just for the name

Since there seems to be a large number of members here with the Tokina 12-24 - how are you finding the lens with regards to chromatic abberations (purple fringing)?

It seems by all accounts this is the lens' biggest downside, having to stop down to f/8 or more to reduce its visibility, which kinda makes the f/4 constant max aperture a bit superfluous.

Onyx wrote:Since there seems to be a large number of members here with the Tokina 12-24 - how are you finding the lens with regards to chromatic abberations (purple fringing)?

It seems by all accounts this is the lens' biggest downside, having to stop down to f/8 or more to reduce its visibility, which kinda makes the f/4 constant max aperture a bit superfluous.

Thanks Onyx for bring it out the woods.
Believe me, none of them notice that downside, maybe not understand it.

Interesting point Chi, I'm also interested in their opinions.

I'd like to take you up on this though:

Onyx wrote: having to stop down to f/8 or more to reduce its visibility, which kinda makes the f/4 constant max aperture a bit superfluous.

Seeing as though you have to stop down to f/8-f/11 for optimal sharpness for all of these lenses, isn't the max aperture essentially irrelevant? It honestly wouldn't bother me if my Sigma 12-24 was f/8 constant (as long as it was sharp there ), as I pretty much never use it wide open. It's like the kit lens vignetting a bit wide open at 18 mm, for the amount of times you use it like that, it doesn't really bother me.

Nikon only for me.....

Tony

MCWB wrote:Interesting point Chi, I'm also interested in their opinions.

I'd like to take you up on this though:

Onyx wrote: having to stop down to f/8 or more to reduce its visibility, which kinda makes the f/4 constant max aperture a bit superfluous.

Seeing as though you have to stop down to f/8-f/11 for optimal sharpness for all of these lenses, isn't the max aperture essentially irrelevant? It honestly wouldn't bother me if my Sigma 12-24 was f/8 constant (as long as it was sharp there ), as I pretty much never use it wide open. It's like the kit lens vignetting a bit wide open at 18 mm, for the amount of times you use it like that, it doesn't really bother me.

Trent you are so right - wide open aperture is like having VR - usefull sometimes

I thought there was a clear marketing advantage for constant f/4 vs variable f/4-5.6 max aperture for wide-angle zooms. As in the wide to standard zoom market, there's a clear marketing advantage for f/2.8 constant max apertures... and the same 'stop down for best performance' arguement applies there too.

Birddog114 wrote:

Onyx wrote:Since there seems to be a large number of members here with the Tokina 12-24 - how are you finding the lens with regards to chromatic abberations (purple fringing)?

It seems by all accounts this is the lens' biggest downside, having to stop down to f/8 or more to reduce its visibility, which kinda makes the f/4 constant max aperture a bit superfluous.

Thanks Onyx for bring it out the woods.
Believe me, none of them notice that downside, maybe not understand it.

I understand it Birdy, just haven't seen any examples of it. So far it is a non-issue.

I chose the Pentax 12-24

Big Red wrote:I chose the Pentax 12-24

Sorry Shane, I keep forgetting that there is life after Nikon. I should have had an option for "Other".

phillipb wrote:

Big Red wrote:I chose the Pentax 12-24

Sorry Shane, I keep forgetting that there is life after Nikon. I should have had an option for "Other".

thats cool ... the sigma's are available for the pentax and if they get a good report on another camera make they should also be good for the pentax so its still a relevent poll

Birddog114 wrote:Link,
It ain't cheap when you add the right CPL to it.

If I'm not mistaking, both the Nikon and the Tokina have a 77mm thread so the price of thr CPL would be the same for either lens.

phillipb wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:Link,
It ain't cheap when you add the right CPL to it.

If I'm not mistaking, both the Nikon and the Tokina have a 77mm thread so the price of thr CPL would be the same for either lens.

Sigma 10 20 has a 77mm CPL too. I bought the Sigma because it was available and I needed it before I left for PNG! I am impressed.

It is a very sharp piece of glass

I would like a 10mm F2.8 but it will do for now.

phillipb wrote:

Birddog114 wrote:Link,
It ain't cheap when you add the right CPL to it.

If I'm not mistaking, both the Nikon and the Tokina have a 77mm thread so the price of thr CPL would be the same for either lens.

The point Birdy was trying to make is that a "standard" CPL on the Tokina causes slight vignetting at 12mm and you have to shell out big bucks for a slimline model to avoid this.

Does that mean that the Nikon can handle the normal width filter?

I don't use CPL and I haven't had any issue with CA. That said, I always try to avoid strong backlighting in first instance, as it's the primary cause of CA in my photos (whatever the lens).

The constant F/4 is very useful to me, especially for indoor environmental portraits where I don't like using flash... It would be the perfect lens if it was as small as the Nikon 50mm (and also have constant, sharp f/2.8, but it's more of a dream )

Link.

Be wary - CPL on 12mm-15mm wide angle can give very unpredicable results

phillipb wrote:Does that mean that the Nikon can handle the normal width filter?

Can't say for sure, but I think so. Vignetting is gone by 14mm on the Tokina with a fat 7mm standard CPL.

... Obsolete ...

ok I'll weight into this discussion since I'm quite interested in getting something in this range sometime soon.

Problem is we need a "can't decide" or "no obvious choice" option for me as none of the lens quite manage to give me what I want if I take into account price as well as other considerations.

Not sure I follow Chi's last comment btw... the use of f/2.8 and faster lens is generally different to those in this class so the stopping down may not be such a big deal.

I was not impressed with the CA characteristics of the tokina when I tested it.... but then again I was not really testing it in ways I would be likely to use such a lens so it might have been somewhat unfair (oh and I also didn't do such strong comparitive tests with any of the other lens).

I seem to recall seeing some tests earliest, here, that suggested to me that the tokina lacked a little in the contrast department as well.

Just 2 cents worth from one who has yet to decide !!!

Michael.

Michael,
Like you, I intend to buy one soon. I don't think I can afford the nikon and judging by what's been said so far, I'm leaning towards the Tokina.
I just spent some time browsing through some photos taken with this lens at http://www.photosig.com and I must say there are some excellent examples there.
Then again there are some excellent photos taken with the 70-300g there which doesn't have a good reputation, so maybe the photographer makes up 80% and the equipment 20% of the photo.

Mj wrote:Not sure I follow Chi's last comment btw... the use of f/2.8 and faster lens is generally different to those in this class so the stopping down may not be such a big deal.

Michael, I'm sorta in the same shoes as you. Shopping for a wide-angle zoom; main purpose would be indoors low light at closer distances (usage is competing with 17-40/16-35L's on Canon's larger sensor 1 series) and less of the landscapes where perhaps design parameters were optimised for on these lenses (and presumably why most people buy wide angle zooms).

I'll clarify my prev statement - all the other third party lenses have a variable max aperture, while on the Tokina it is constant (and faster than those of the competition). This should give the Tokina an advantage on paper, all things being equal, but since the optical performance is such that stopping down is required (to control CA), this paper advantage is anulled. Hence it's back to square 1 as to which lens is most suited.

I voted for the Sigma 10-20, don't own one but did order one today ....

well done James nice choice

the Sigma at 10 mm has no vignetting with a standard filter.

I went for the Nikon 12-24, One of the reasons was that as I assumed I'd only ever buy one WA lens, I didn't want to regret it later... Haven't regretted paying the extra, find the Nikon needs a fair bit of sharpening though but that's probably just me not driving it properly. great color sat and contrast, very rarely flares... If you ever needed to I'd assume you'd get good resale on a Nikon lens...

If I was buying again with the benefit of hindsight I might go for the Tokina simply on the bang-for-the-buck basis, but very happy with my baby and I don't regret paying that bit extra one little bit

Use standard thickness Hoya CPL's and no vignetting...

Re: aperture, I don't think I've ever used it wider than F8 as I only use it for landscape stuff...

FWIW...

Dug wrote:well done James nice choice

the Sigma at 10 mm has no vignetting with a standard filter.

By 'standard' do you mean a 7mm polariser, or a 5mm UV/skylight?

I have a Tamron 11-18. This also is a fine lens. It does not have a constant aperture though. But, as I mainly use it for outdoor work, it doesn't really bother me. What I do like about the lens is the very low distortion.
This lens receives a good review in the Jan/Feb edition of Camera Australia.

Regards
meicw

I have a Nikon 12-24 which I am very happy with but I saw some results out of the Sigma 10-20 a couple of weeks ago and was very impressed

hey, theres no "none of the above" button!

I've decided to do what I did with my FE2s, go to all prime lenses. I dont mind using non-AF lenses and consulting the histogram to fine tune exposure, which I can usually estimate reasonably closely anyway, so I can keep using my old lenses such as 16mm fisheye. Sometime soon I plan to purchase the 10.5mm fisheye and 20mm f/1.8 Aspheric WA Sigma, as I am happy with the performance of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

Gordon

That's interesting Gordon, the 16mm fisheye is not a lot wider then the kit lens, does it still give you the fisheye distortion on the D70?

Summary of this poll as of today.

1/ Nikkor 12-24
2/ Tokina 12-24
3/ Sigma 10-20
4/ Sigma 12-24
5/ Tamron 11-18

People prefer Nikkor and Tokina as first and second choice.

phillipb wrote:That's interesting Gordon, the 16mm fisheye is not a lot wider then the kit lens, does it still give you the fisheye distortion on the D70?

Yes Phil, but not so obvious as on 35mm film, but still there. Its a bit subject dependent really, sometimes its barely noticeable. It may not have much difference in focal length, but it is a LOT wider! not far off 50% wider.

Gordon

Neither of the above My choice, of course, is the Canon 17-40 (hear intake of breath from Nikon shooters ) which will become really wide when and if I buy the Canon 5D.

Cheers
Sheila

But based on this poll, the 17-40 is really no different from the 17-35 and isn't really a "wide-angle lens" per say...

It is wide-angle, and on a 5D, you'd be getting a 17-40 rather than a 25-60 like you would on the 20D, but it's not as wide as say a 12mm on your 20D which comes out to around 18mm instead.