Customer Reviews

Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX Zoom Digital Lens for Nikon AF Mount

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Like many folks, I was a bit shocked at the price of Nikon's 12-24mm lens. I was willing to pay it, but not if Tokina's version was close, better or equal! My shots were handheld, but just about every shot from the Tokina was sharper, especially at the edges at 12mm. At 24mm, the Tokina seemed to widen the gap. I was really saddened by the Nikon's performance, but the saved 500 bucks was certainly nothing to be sad about!
As to build quality? Forget it. Nikon took the day off on this lens. It feels rather cheap, nothing close to what it's price would indicate. I'm shocked that Nikon made such a plasticy item at close to a 1000 dollars. The Tokina was better in every respect, except I felt the zoom was too stiff.
How about AF? The Nikon focused faster, but frankly the Tokina was focusing FAST as well. A difference that made no difference.
How about CA? I saw little or none from either lens. On the way home I shot some branches and saw very little CA until I cropped past 200%. I'm impressed, but after reviewing my samples I did determine that the Nikon had a bit less CA at the edges.
No, I'm not going to post samples, because they were handheld and there are too many. There have been plenty of samples leaning this way and that already. If there's any logic on this at all consider this: These lenses are pretty close in REAL WORLD use. You don't do much cropping of 12mm shots, unless you didn't take care to compose correctly. In experienced hands either lens will return pro level results, BUT, the Tokina does it better, as good, or just a bit worse...for half the price. I wanted another Nikon logo on the shelf, but I feel that the 12-24 was simply outclassed by the Tokina.
I'm keeping mine. Many thanks to the folks at Tristate Photo in NY who let me shoot away with both, then gave me a nice price of 478.00 on the Tokina.


Robert B
NY
D70, 28-200G, 18-70mm, 70-200 VR, 50mm 1.8, Tokina 12-24, SB800.

I borrowed both the Nikon 12-24 F4 and the Tokina 12-24 f4 pro before I made a descision on which lens to purchase. I was prepared to pay for the Nikon if I felt it was superior to the Tokina. I mostly shoot in extreme conditions, so rugged construction of my equipment is very important, followed by the efficiency of the design (operationally), and the quality of the optics. The Tokina out performed the Nikon based on the construction and was equal to the Nikon in design and optics. It is the only non-nikon glass I use.

Save yourself a lot o money. You will be happy with this glass. The build has a classic feel and is excellent, and the photos are great. DONT PAY TWICE AS MUCH FOR THE NIKON. If you want an excellent wide angle, buy this and then buy the Nikon 18-200 VR. Actually, do it the other way around.

After much research, I bought this lens about a month ago and I am loving it. This is my primary lens at the moment , however I do have a 50mm 1.8 prime as a secondary. This lens has a good weight and good build quality. 12mm is a nice wide angle with which you can accomplish some amazing compositions. There are a couple of things to be careful with, which are common with any wide lens - at 12mm and using on camera flash the camera will see it's own shadow cast by the lens - This is not a problem with a separate speedlight.

Based on months of researching this lens vs. other options, my expectations were moderately high. I am happy to say that this lens has exceeded them.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Pros:

Sharpness: 85%-90% as sharp as $1K+ Nikon glass I have used, and you will not even see the 10%-15% deficiency until you are past 100% in magnification. Since you will likely never print larger than 100% magnification (I sure don't) this will not be an issue. I was expecting 60-75% as sharp so this has exceeded my expectations.

Distortion: better than several much more expensive Nikon offerings I have used. Amazingly low and easy to correct if you care to. At 24mm there is virtually none (better than the 24mm Nikon) and at wider angles it is much, much lower than expected and looks great right out of the camera. If you are someone who likes the fish-eye look at 12mm you will be disappointed. There is virtually no fish-eye effect at 12mm. personally, if I wanted that look I would use a fish-eye lens so I am very happy with this lens in this respect.

Focusing: fast, strong, accurate. No problems here.

Contrast: excellent. At least as good as expensive Nikon glass.

Physical: Outstanding build quality as expected. Smaller and lighter than expected, however, and a much better center of gravity than expected. I was expecting something longer, heavier, and more top heavy. I was pleasantly surprised when I actually handled it. Looks solid and professional and doesn't feel flimsy. Hood goes on and stays on just like one would expect.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Cons:

CA: Much worse than expected and much worse than Nikon glass I have used. Blue fringing will be found somewhere in virtually every shot, even shots taken in the best conditions. In less than the best lighting conditions it will be very bad and omnipresent throughout the shot. BUT----wait folks! Here's the good news: it is very, very, very easily correctable in PS CS3 or CS4 (maybe also in earlier versions but I don't have them anymore so I don't know). All you need to do is load your RAW image (you are shooting 100% in RAW, right?) in Camera Raw and then select the lens corrections pane. I have found that the following settings work for virtually every picture taken with this lens, regardless the conditions: 1. Move the "Fix Blue/Yellow Fringe" slider to +50 2. Select "Defringe All Edges." You are done. It's gone just like magic. I have been spoiled in that I haven't typically had to use these adjustments very often in the past with really expensive Nikon glass, but with some of them I have had to make very complicated distortion adjustments (which I don't with this lens) so I guess it all evens out. Given that this lens performs so well in every other respect and that this issue is 100% correctable with 15 seconds of post-processing, it's nowhere near a dealbreaker for me.

--------------------------------------------------------------

A review of this lens has to take into account the price. The price is amazing considering the performance. have I achieved sharper results with a $1K+ 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikon lens? Yes, I have. Have those differences shown up in prints? No, they haven't. They have shown up in 200-300% PS pixel-peeping only. Have I had some great shots go to waste--and countless others turn into 2 hour PS nightmares--by complex distortion signatures on $1,100 Nikon Pro lenses? (not mentioning any names, Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8) Yes, I have. Is there any evidence that will happen with this lens? No, there isn't. Alright; you get the point. This is not a perfect lens but at less than $500 in my opinion it is a damn good one and I think it will be stuck on my body for a while to come.

Oh--and did I mention resale value? Have you checked used listings of this lens on various sites? It is holding a higher percentage of its new value than most Nikon pro lenses do. So much for third party lenses having poor resale value.

Good lens. Build quality is excellent. A little bulkier and slightly less sharp and not AF-S compared to sigma 10-20mm (1 star reduction). Reasonably priced compared to Nikon 12-24mm. No case or pouch, but LowerPro 1W case will accommodate it nicely. Sigma's barrel distortion is very complex, so you would not be able to correct it fully during post processing. Tokina distortion could be corrected.
Would recommend it for folks not owning D40,D60 (manual focusing would be a challenge at this angles). Sigma 10-20mm is also good lens.

I just spent two weeks in Hawaii with this lens. Amazing landscape shots and little distortion. I never tried the Nikon 12-24, but at half the price the Tokina is great. It is a bit heavy, but that is because it is built well. If you can't afford a D200 & the Nikon 18-200VR then consider:

1. Tokina 12-24
2. Nikon 18-55
3. Nikon 55-200VR
4. Nikon D80 (If you get a D40 forget the Tokina, no AIS motor)

Yes there is better, but not at that price.

Also well built. My cat knocked the lens off a shelf and it fell 3 feet to a hard floor. No damage at all.

Toklina 12-24mm f/4 is a very good lens. It has a solid build and excellent optical quality. Normally, I stay with Nikon lenses for my Nikon camera, but the optical quality of the Tokina 12-24 is actually a bit better than the corresponding wide-angle Nikon lens. AND, this Tokina is about half the price of the corresponding Nikon, so it's pretty much of a no-brainer deciding between the two. The only reason I give it four stars instead of five is that there is actually a better wide-angle lens for just a little more money: The recently released Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 , which just costs about $100 more. The Tokina 11-16 is twice as fast as the Tokina 12-24 and even goes to a little wider angle.

A final note: If you get the Tokina 12-24 or the Tokina 11-16, buy an authentic 77mm diameter Nikon lens cap to go with it and ditch the Tokina lens cap. The Tokina lens cap on my lens broke when I dropped my camera a few inches onto a tatami mat in Japan. Although the Tokina lenses themselves are very sturdy, their lens caps are not, so protect your investment by buying a Nikon lens cap to go with it.

This lens is really great! Very sharp, and vivid colors are displayed on all my photos. This lens allows a photographer to get close to the subject for very interesting angles. Takes excellent landscape photos too! I highly recommend this lens...is about half the price of the Nikon, and takes excellent photos. What else could you ask for?

I now have the following lenses for my D200. Nikon 18-200 VR, 10.5mm Nikon Fisheye, Sigma 50-500mm, and Nikon 50mm f/1.8. This Tokina is now my favorite lens. Between the amazing character of the ultra-wide and the unrivaled clarity and sharpness of its optics, I still cannot accept how low the price is. The only negative that I can think of is the push/pull of the manual/auto focus ring. A little awkward, but, I can live with that. This lens is very solidly built and, in my humble opinion, is optically better than the Nikon at more than twice the price. It has very little chromatic aberration and is extremely fast in focusing. I did consider the Tokina 11-16, f/2.8, at another almost $200. For my use, the difference between 11 and 12 on the low end was negligible and the increase from 16-24 on the high end was worth that sacrifice. The aperture difference did not seem such a big deal to me either. I am so blown away by this lens, that I now begin each shoot with this lens, trying to make it work, before I consider selecting another option in my bag.