Comments on: Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX II LENS – bargain ultra-wide?

By: Quazi Ahmed Hussain

Quazi Ahmed Hussain — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:25:37 +0000

If a hobbyist is going to Africa for safari with a crop body; the cheapest option is the EFs 18-55mm kit lens and EFs 55-250mm telezoom both from Canon. I don’t know of anything cheaper and of good quality than this. Of course quality will go up with corresponding increase in expenditure.

I had been there last year and visited the famous Masai Mara. My equipment were EOS 450D, the kit lens and EF 70-300mm IS USM. I am fully convinced the 55-250mm telezoom can sufficiently do the job of 70-300mm on these safaris. However, if the shooter is after birds, a longer telephoto lens will be necessary. I do birding with EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. This is the best affordable birding lens. Lack of IS on this lens is not an issue if used skillfully.

By: bob

bob — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:35:40 +0000

The problem with carrying only two lenses is that the 18-200 will have significantly poorer IQ than the 11-16, especially at the 200 end which is the only real reason to have it. Also, with the11-16 one gets really, really spoiled with f2.8 — also missing on the 18-200, and I did not find that VR made up for a slow lens, which I had — it really gets slow in the middle range at 55+mm.

I don’t necessarily want to recommend, only say what I have: the Tokina 11-16, the Nikon 17-55 2.8 (Tamron makes a highly regarded one too) and the older Nikon 80-200 2.8 (not the AF-S version which is no longer in production). Three lenses, entire range.

None of these are VR, but they are super fast and produce incredibly sharp images, way beyond the 18-200 capability. As for the criticism that the 80-200 focuses slowly, we recently attended a rodeo. I set my d300 on continuous mode and didn’t miss one shot of continuous action. If this lens is too heavy, sigma makes a well reviewed 50-150 and tokina makes a well reviewed 50-135, each of which replicates approximate 70-200 on the DX sensor.

By: nate

nate — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 04:07:51 +0000

if you’re going to get only 2 lenses, then i would highly recommend the nikkon’s 18-200 mm and tokina’s 11-16. unless you were going to africa to take photos of lions, then these 2 lenses will serve you more than supremely well for just about EVERYTHING your photographic heart needs and desires! i’m sure most of my knowledgeable peers here will agree…

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 03:46:24 +0000

If you’re in the market for one of these for Nikon, get the Tokina 11-16. There is simply no better lens. Even Rockwell says its the best ultra wide for Nikon. Won’t work on full frame. Early on there was some reported sample problems but it appears those have all been worked out. The IQ is stunning. I took some Arizona wildflowers and printed out 13×19 for my office. Absolutely perfect.

By: will

will — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:24:33 +0000

Why are we listening to Ken Rockwell?

By: Kim Brebach

Kim Brebach — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:03:26 +0000

Sorry, posted the wrong link for the Tamron review. Here’s the right one
http://www.photodo.com/topic_34.html
Kim

By: Kim Brebach

Kim Brebach — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:01:57 +0000

Apologies for getting it wrong about the Sony version, Fred.
JD, the bargain for FF sensor cameras is the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8 – 4. Tamron stopped making it last year but you can get a second hand one for about $350 – $400. It’s still listed on Tamron’s website
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/17_35mm.asp
And here’s a review:
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/17_35mm.asp
Yes, I wish I’d bought the 11-16 for a few dollars more. It doesn’t AF with my fave D40, that’s why I went the other way.
Kim

By: Quazi Ahmed Hussain

Quazi Ahmed Hussain — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:08:28 +0000

Ken Rockwell heavily praised the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ultra wide lens. Some of my photographer friends have also bought this lens and are very happy users. The only problem with this lens is; it’s an ultra wide lens all the way. However, its superb IQ is considered enough reason by users to retain it.

May I request some users’ comments on this lens in this thread?

Thanks in advance.

By: Richard Crowe

Richard Crowe — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:47:12 +0000

I love my 12-24mm f/4 Tokina Mark-I model. I have not been troubled with flare but, I always use the lens hood and seldom shoot into the sun with a UWA lens. I do like the image quality of this lens because it seems to be three dimensional to me.

The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 would mesh better with my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens but, the 12-24mm has one advantage over the 11-16mm: the approximate 19-38mm equivalency of the 12-24mm (on a 1.6x camera) can fill in as a medium range zoom lens if my 17-55mm should ever go down. I carried the 12-24mm along with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses to China for a two week trip in April of this year. Luckily, the 17-55mm came through with flying colors and I only used the 12-24mm sparingly (note: the 28mm equivalent of the wide side of the 17-55mm provides a wide enough view for most of my images).

The Tokina UWA lenses have another advantage for me. I use a Canon D60 which has been converted to full-time infrared photography. I can use the 12-24mm Tokina on that camera since, although it is designed for the 1.6x format, the Tokina is not an EFS lens.

All that said, I am not a great fan of many UWA shots so I use the Tokina sparingly. I really thought I would use it more often than I did in China.

By: JD

JD — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:53:26 +0000

And what about some bargain for full frame sensor? What can you suggest?