Customer Reviews

Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

5 star:		(29)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Another work of Nikon lens genius which gives the ability to take dramatic, unusual, never-before-available, super-wide pix. As recently as a few years ago, before Nikon learned to mass produce aspheric elements, manufacturing this complex 14 element lens at reasonable cost would have been impossible. Compared to the earlier 12-24mm, significantly wider angle.

A nice suprise is that this DX lens can also be used FX, with some limitations of course. Although it will give the full zoom range only when used on the smaller DX format, it actually covers the frame of an FX camera - not over the full range but from 24mm down to about 18mm focal length, with acceptable vignetting (edge darkening). I am using it that way on my film Nikon F6 and digital D700. (For the D700, turn the DX Crop default OFF and turn the Vignette Control to HIGH.) This is pretty cool because it means that someone who wants only occasional use of an 18-24mm lens on a full frame camera does not have to go out and buy a new lens if they already have this one.

I disagree with the reviewers who complain about the plastic, Made in China construction. If this lens were made of brass and steel like a Leica, it would weigh twice as much, cost much more, and be no better photographically. Is it more important to have the controls be smooth than to capture new kinds of photos? In my opinion Nikon has taken the right approach - state of the art computational design, innovative manufacturing of aspheric elements, good enough construction, and breakthrough capability affordable for the amateur photog.

Upon first inspection, fit & finish are on par with Nikon's own 18-200, 16-85, etc. I would say that it's very-very close to the build, size/weight of my 16-85. It's a very decent build, solid plastic, and has smooth operating zoom and focus rings. This lens has a metal mount, weather seal gasket, and a focus distance window.

Why didn't I buy the 12-24 f/4? The Nikon 10-24mm will give me 10mm at f/3.5, which works fine for me. The 12-24mm will give me 12mm at f/4, which is neither wide or bright enough. I hear so many folks state "but the 12-24 is a constant f/4." I've also heard people say that "variable aperture" lenses are indicative of cheaper or consumer-grade lenses. I don't necessarily agree with that. I believe most lenses are a touch sharper when stopped down from their maximum aperture anyway, therefore a constant f/4 with the 12-24mm doesn't necessarily attract me to that lens. I wouldn't shoot the 12-24mm at f/4 anyway, especially for landscapes. In my opinion, the 10-24mm makes more sense with it's wider field of view.

Why I bought this lens:

1. Versatility. This is one of its best attributes. The 10-24mm is versatile due to ultra wide views for landscapes, yet can zoom to a more natural focal length for a quick snapshot or portrait at your home gathering or outing.

2. Landscape photography. For me, it comes down to real-world applications and benefits of having a wide angle. I love landscape shots and though you can make decent landscapes at 18mm, having an ultra wide in your bag allows you to capture expansive vistas, whether at the beach or the mountains.

3. Perspective. The perspective you're able to get with this lens is tremendous. Though there is fair distortion on the 10mm side, it's easily correctable with DxO or Photoshop, among other graphics programs. To be creative with wide angle, read Ken Rockwell's page on using a wide angle lens. He and others will explain that a wide angle is for drawing people into the picture. Use your wide angle to emphasize the main subject. As Ken says, ultra wide lenses are for getting close and bringing the viewer into the photo, not for fitting a subject into a photo.

5. Range. Opting for the Nikon 10-24mm gives more range than both the Tokina 11-16mm and Sigma 10-20mm. It can easily be left on the camera all day, allowing landscape shooting and a decent portrait lens from 18-24mm without the need to switch lenses.

So how's the lens? It's outstanding, given the nature of ultra-wides. You'll notice distortion in the far corners/sides of your images below 15mm or so. Those corners will be a little soft at times, depending on your aperture setting. Wide open at f/3.5, you'll get softness away from the center of the image. Depending on your shooting habits, the large aperture will not detract from your images if you place your main subject in the center. Even wide open the main subject or center of the image will be sharp. Stopping down to f/5.6, f/8, and smaller apertures sharpens entire image. For landscapes, I routinely shoot at f/5.6-f/11 or smaller for optimal sharpness across the entire image.

Alternatives to Nikon:

A. Tokina 11-16mm. In my opinion the 11-16 at f/2.8, though a fine lens, is not necessarily a landscape lens. I don't shoot landscapes at f/2.8, f/3.5, or f/4 for that matter. If I want captivating ultra-wide shots with foreground/background in clear focus, I'd set f/5.6 through f/16 or beyond, depending on the lens I'm using. This is not to say you can't bring the Tokina to the Grand Canyon and shoot at f/11 to capture an expansive view at 11mm. You can surely do that with the Tokina, but you can see where I'm going with this. The Tokina's maximum aperture of f/2.8 is not utilized when shooting in a landscape setting. The Tokina makes for a superb low light interior ultra-wide, whereas it's hard to use a flash and light the entire room properly. I believe that lens serves a different purpose all together and you may find the zoom range too limited.

B. Tokina 12-24mm. It's definitely a contender at half the price. Superb build - better than Nikon. However, wouldn't you rather have Nikon for the ultimate in quality, dependability, and resale value?

C. Sigma 10-20mm. It's worth looking at due to fair reviews, better range than the Tokina 11-16mm and its low price point compared to Nikon.

D. Tamron 10-24mm. Forget it. Too soft and check the poor user reviews and Ken's review as well.

The filter for this lens is a Pro 77mm. I opted for a B&W multi-coated UV filter. B+W 77mm UVA (Ultra Violet) Haze MRC Filter #010 Filters in this size can be pricey, especially a 77mm circular polarizer, which isn't recommended for this lens due to uneven darkening of skies. You'd be better off grabbing a Cokin Z or for UWA lenses, the X-Pro series filter. The Lee foundation kit utilizing 4x6 filters or Hitech's 4x5's would be a good option.

Neutral Density (ND) Filters. Many of you may wish to make cool wide angle shots of a waterfalls, creeks, rivers, or oceans with the silky smooth water movement you see so often in these pictures. To do that you need a neutral density filter if shooting in daylight conditions. I would recommend an inexpensive Hoya 77mm ND8X. Hoya HMC NDx8 - Filter - neutral density 8x - 77 mm If you're worried about vignetting with the Hoya, please don't. I use it on the Nikon 10-24mm and see absolutely no vignetting at 10mm. The ND8x is a 3 stop filter and will allow you to get between 1-2 second shutter speeds during broad daylight. With those speeds and by using a tripod, you're able to get the silky water movement in your waterfalls and such. Better still would be to wait until later in the evening or find a shaded cove or dense foliage location with a waterfall or creek. Your shutter speeds in those conditions may be upwards to 5-6 sec or more.

Circular Polarizer's (CPL): Not recommended for UWA lenses due to uneven darkening of skies. However, I carefully and strategically use a 77mm Marumi Super CPL with no issues with uneven darkening and no vignetting. The Marumi is fantastic with a solid 5mm thin build, superb polarization quality, and smooth operation. It's almost equivalent to B&W's top end CPL and less than half the price. What I mean by strategic use of a CPL is to use clouds, trees, buildings, etc, to "mask" any uneven darkening of skies. Moreover, you don't have to use your CPL with its maximum effect. It works very well at giving you a touch more blue in your skies, while helping to bring out details is clouds and brighten & saturate your foregrounds. On cloudy days, the CPL can help you with your reflections, so it's not only good for those sunny days. I would avoid using it for landscapes with clear blue skies that fill the frame. If you are to do that, you'll clearly see a dark striation down the center of your image. The CPL effect can't cover the field of view at 10mm and there's no getting around it, less "masking" your shot with clouds, trees or buildings as mentioned earlier. Marumi CPL is here: Marumi DHG Super Circular Polarizer CPL PL.D 77 77mm Filter Japan By the way, I can stack the Marumi and the Hoya ND8x down to 11mm with no vignetting.

Regarding my copy of the 10-24mm, with thourough testing, 10mm seems sharpest at f/5.6 - f/8. Depth of field appears as broad at 10mm f/5.6-f/8 as it is at smaller apertures. At 24mm, my sharpest setting is f/11.

Bottom line: The Nikon 10-24mm is a superb ultra wide lens for DX cameras. Its build quality is typical Nikon with a solid plastic feel, smooth zoom & focus, weather sealed gasket, metal mount, and quick/quiet auto focus. It's capable of sharp landscape pictures and offers any photographer the ability to take creative pictures with tremendous perspective and depth.

I have owned and shot with the Nikon 12-24, Tokina 12-24, and three copies of the Sigma 10-20. With the exception of one recent bad copy of the Sigma they were all notably better than the 10-24 in the corners. My copy of the 10-24 is nice in the center, but all four corners were uniformly degraded. Every other WA lens I have owned cleans up very fast in the corners at 10-12mm and by f/5.6 was nearly as good as f/11. Not so with 10-24, which is mushy in the corners at f/3.5 and improves only gradually as it is stopped down, with peak sharpness at a bit over f/11. At f/11 it mostly catches up with the third-party lenses mentioned above and Nikon's own 12-24. I have posted sample images on DPR, photo.net, [...], look them up to see what I am talking about.

The 10-24 range is ideal for my needs so it is a shame that the performance is not as good as the 12-24, even at 12-14mm. The MTF numbers would have suggested that it would be better. My copy is not. Since all four corners are nearly uniformly degraded I don't think that I have a lemon, it may be just inherent in the lens design. I am tempted to call it curvature of field, but with the extreme DOF at 10mm even at f/5.6 I am not sure this would be a reasonable explanation.

While not as terrible as the sample images I have seen from the Tamron 10-24mm, my copy of this lens would not seem to be as good with flat-field subjects (aka brick walls :-) as the other WA lenses I have owned. However, in real-life images with variable depth the corner softness is very difficult to see. Not sure if this is because of the possible field curvature mentioned above, or because it is very rare that I shoot something that has good detail all the way to the corners.

Overall I am a bit disappointed. Given the price it should have been unambiguously better than the competition. Not 2x better as other reviewers have suggested, I am prepared to pay a decent premium to Nikon just for the consistency of color rendition I would get between this and my other most used lens (70-200). However, my expectation was to be able to say "about the same as the Sigma 10-20 in most respects, better at X and Y". Right now I am not sure what X and Y would be, at least in comparison to the excellent copy of the Sigma 10-20 I used to have.

I will probably end up keeping the lens. The 10-24mm range is just too convenient for me, and there is no way I would consider replacing this with the Tamron 10-24, which is absolutely terrible in the corners at 10mm according to numerous reviews.

===========================
Update on 1/7

I need to amend the review. I am leaving the original text unchanged for reference purposes, so it is clear what I said earlier and how my views have evolved.

After using the lens for a few months I need to retract my "soft in the corners" assessment. Not sure how I came to this conclusion with the original tests, the softness was clearly there, but try as I might I cannot reproduce it now with careful focusing. My best guess is that I slightly mis-focused, AF can be unreliable on WA lenses. If you test it against a brick wall make sure to be square and use LiveView with manual focusing. With careful focusing the lens is at least as good as the Sigma 10-20 that I loved so much. Not corner-corner sharpness, that would be a small miracle at 10mm, but slightly better than anything I have seen from the competition. Overall the lens is still not a great value for the quality delivered, but if price is a secondary concern you will love the range and consistency of color rendition with your other Nikon lenses. If you want the absolute best bang for the buck go for the Sigma, just make sure you test it carefully, there are many documented instances of significant copy variation. The colors a slightly different, not better or worse, just different.

My husband purchased this lens from Amazon because of good service I received in the past. It is available from other online sources for slightly less. He reports that the lens arrived a day earlier than expected (thank you) and has been used for interior and exterior shots. On a d90, the built-in flash works from about 19 to 24 mm without lens shading. It focuses fast, balances well with the d90, and the pictures are sharp and have good contrast. At the 10 mm end, it gives great angle of view, with expected barrel distortion. Got sharper stopped down to f8. Distortion fades up to 15 mm and from there to 24 mm, it is a sharp lens for family and outdoor shots. This will be his main d90 lens. He was considering the Nikkor 12-24, but wanted the extra WA, considered the Tokina 11-16, but again wanted the extra WA and had concerns about availability and QC issues. Wishes there was more technical test data, but he needed a good WA lens now for upcoming vacations and is happy with this choice. Says Nikon has never failed him and Amazon was solid.

This lens is a lot of fun! IQ is pretty good. Most of the distortion this lens produces can be corrected without fancy tools if you have to and the sharpness (pointed out by other reviews) is good enough to satisfy me at a 8x10 print size. If you view your shots at 100% you might find issues were cheaper normal range lenses perform slightly better - but I guess these are physical consequences of this extrem focal length.

I like the range. 10 mm is awesome - but 24 mm still allows you to use it for "normal" snapshots with people in it that don't look too weird. This makes this lens much more versatile in my opinion than optically superior lenses with a smaller focal range. Sometimes I wish it was faster, but I wouldn't want to see the prize tag either if it were...
For a DX lens, it is not quite cheap, but it is certainly a better build quality than many other DX lenses.

The reason to spend the money for this lens is if you want the widest super-wide angle available for DX that allows you to go to a moderate 36mm FX equivalent and still has a very acceptable weight. The Tokina 11-16 costs less, is faster, potentially optically superior, but heavier and limited in it's focal range.
It comes down to range and weight vs. speed and price. I think I would pick the Nikon again.

I read everything I could about wide zooms FX and DX. For DX, this one is the best. I bought it for a photo safari to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada, and another to Big Bend National Park.

The Tokina may be a good lens, but the zoom range is very limited. At 11mm by 16mm the Nikon is at least as good plus you still have range to use. That makes the Nikkor a no brainer.

I just returned from a 8 day photo safari of the upper east coast of the USA, and Canada. I took over 800 photos most with this lens. As it turned out I was very happy I bought the Nikon 10-24mm, and did not choose the Tokina 11-16mm. The added range made all the difference.

Light Houses, harbor sunsets, ships at sea, city streets, building interiors, and lots more. This lens was on my D90, and a 18-200mm on my D40.

Bought this lens a couple of months back, and have loved shooting with it ever since. Recently just went to Italy. Before the trip I was debating whether or not I would need a wide angle lens like this. I have the new 18-200 vr II lens and thought I would be able to be fine. Against my intuition I went ahead and bought this lens. WOW. I am so glad that I did! It is a fantastic lens that allows you to be more creative and really make stunning images. People seem to get really caught up in technical details... this is a great lens that makes sharp and colorful images. If you read that it is not sharp, they probably don't know how to focus their camera correctly. 99% of image blunders are made by the photographer, not the camera or lens.
If you love wide angle images, this is a must have lens for your arsenal. It is a solidly built lens, despite what other reviewers have said. Sure it's not pro standard, but who needs that anyway? And if it was built to pro standard it would cost probably about five times as much! Bottom line, it's a great lens, and you won't regret buying it. As for the 12-24, it's a great option. Definitely built tougher, and about the same price, but that 2mm makes a big difference. So if you want WIDE, go for the 10-24.

I got this lens the other day from Amazon and had a chance to play around with it a bit. The sharpness and the straightness in the corners, upon initial inspection, don't look to be any better then the 12-24mm Nikon DX wide angle. That was largely considered inferior in every way to the Tokina 11-16mm lens, which is hard to come by and seems to have some focus problems in certain production batches. This lens is quicker then the 12-24mm in certain situations, and will go 2mm wider for essentially the same price, so its a no brainer for people who want DX wide angle Nikon glass. The Tokina 11-16mm is more a pro style lens, its heavier and its faster then the two Nikon wide angle zoom lens. However, this new 10-24mm is much lighter, great for carrying around, and a perfect casual amateur wide angle lens. The only problem is the price; its essentially a pro price for an amateur quality piece of glass. So if you have the scratch and you want something you can carry around with you to shoot wide angle, buy it immediately. Its the pefect companion lens for the 18-200mm VR, and its built in exactly the same way. You can carry two lens and get 10-200mm in coverage. If you need pro wide angle DX glass, don't buy, and if you don't have 900 to burn on a lens, don't buy. I think Nikon must be thinking that an amateur won't have a problem buying a D5000 or D90 body, this lens and the 18-200mm lens and then calling it a day. They may be right, but in the current economy, i'm afraid then may not be.

I use this wide angle lens on a Nikon D90. I have lenses that cover the range from 10mm to 300mm in 3 steps: 10-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-300mm. I also own the fairly new Nikon 85mm micro with VR. I am willing to change lenses as needed - no single solution for all day such as the 18-200mm for me. This background is leading up to the statement that I don't use this lens very much. However, when it is appropriate I find it terrific for the price. The angle of view at 10mm is a little more than 90 degrees; this means you can skrunch in a corner and see both walls. This, is rather neat when shooting certain types of architecture and landscape scenes.

When the angle of a wide lens such as this is proper for the job, several other benefits are there because of the lens physics: 1) good depth of field even when hardly stopped down and 2) ability to shoot at relatively low shutter speeds even without VR. The second benefit follows partly because, other things being equal, short focal length lenses are lighter and smaller than longer focal wave lenses. I uploaded (to Amazon) a picture made with this lens at Carlsbad Caverns that was shot at f4.2 and 0.4 seconds. Hand held! Of course I had to brace my body as best I could and was far enough from the subject that a flash would have been silly. I used this lens exclusively in the Caverns because I needed to shot low-light hand-held as well as liking the angle of view. I was not impressed until I got home and started looking at the pictures in Photo Shop. I had already announced that these were practice shots so I'd know what equipment (tripod, etc.) to bring next time. At least a third of the shots in these rotten conditions were useful and some were really great. I can't think of another lens in my bag that would work as well (not even the 24-70mm f2.8 because it's too heavy for this kind of work).

I have owned the 10-24mm for a year now. As said above, I only use it once in a while. But it is always in my bag when I go on a shoot. If I need a wide field of view, I know this lens will do the job and I'm willing to take the time to switch. If I wasn't, I would not be using an SLR in the first place.

I picked up this lens because I wanted an ultra-wide angle lens that could also serve as a walking around lens under many circumstances. I thought about the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX for Nikon AF, and while it's a great lens, I was turned off by the short range. There's also the Tokina 12-24MM F4 Pro II Zoom Lens for Digital Nikon SLR Cameras, so my decision was between these two lenses. The Tokina is the best of all DX ultra-wides as far as build quality goes, but I went with the Nikon because of the extra 2mm on the long end. I've been practicing my HDR technique with this lens, and I'm looking forward to getting some great shots of the fall foliage soon.

The image quality of the 10-24mm is spectacular. It's extremely sharp! I don't notice too much softness in the corners, but I'm not much of a pixel-peeper anyway.

The build quality (for a lens in this price range) leaves a little bit to be desired. It's not a poorly built lens, just not built well enough to be $800. Nikon's previous version (Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED IF Autofocus DX Nikkor Zoom Lens) of the DX ultra-wide had a slightly better build and finish. The barrel of the lens moves in and out with the zooming mechanism on this lens, while the older Nikon and Tokinas have internal zooming. The external movement is not huge (not even an inch). It would be great if this had the same exact build of the older Nikon 12-24mm. But something tells me that Nikon may be leaving the ultra-wide DX market to the third party players to perfect.

Overall, not a bad product at all. It would be perfect if the build quality was better.