Comments on: First Look: Nikon 10-24 http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/ Reviews, Technique, Portfolio, Prints Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:35:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: The Sports Photo Guy http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/comment-page-1/#comment-4018 The Sports Photo Guy Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:27:49 +0000 http://sportsphotoguy.com/?p=545#comment-4018 If you need f2.8, buy the <a href="http://www.adorama.com/?kbid=62512&sku=TN1116NK&sub=n1024" rel="nofollow">Tokina</a>. If you don't, I'd go with the <a href="http://www.adorama.com/?kbid=62512&sku=NK1024AFSU&sub=n1024" rel="nofollow">Nikon</a>. I'm also very impressed with the <a href="http://sportsphotoguy.com/a-new-wideout-sigma-8-16/" rel="nofollow">Sigma 8-16</a>. I use the Tokina all the time, and yes it is sometimes limiting but surprisingly it works well in many situations. If you need f2.8, buy the Tokina. If you don’t, I’d go with the Nikon. I’m also very impressed with the Sigma 8-16. I use the Tokina all the time, and yes it is sometimes limiting but surprisingly it works well in many situations.

]]> By: Nick Lawton http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/comment-page-1/#comment-4017 Nick Lawton Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:13:18 +0000 http://sportsphotoguy.com/?p=545#comment-4017 Now you have spent a year or so with the Tokina (I presume you still have it) and the Nikon 10-24 is now around $700us. Would you be tempted by the Nikon? Do you find the Tokina zoom range to be limiting? I have basically narrowed my options to the Nikon 10-24, the Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20 and the Tamaron 10-24. I have read review after review and am still stuck. I would use it for mainly for cityscapes, but also for lanscapes and indoor shooting. Please help Now you have spent a year or so with the Tokina (I presume you still have it) and the Nikon 10-24 is now around $700us.
Would you be tempted by the Nikon?
Do you find the Tokina zoom range to be limiting?
I have basically narrowed my options to the Nikon 10-24, the Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20 and the Tamaron 10-24. I have read review after review and am still stuck. I would use it for mainly for cityscapes, but also for lanscapes and indoor shooting.
Please help

]]> By: The Sports Photo Guy http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/comment-page-1/#comment-2157 The Sports Photo Guy Sat, 16 Jan 2010 11:20:41 +0000 http://sportsphotoguy.com/?p=545#comment-2157 No - I just kept the Tokina. But it was a tough call. If Nikon had made the 10-24 about a $700 lens, it would be worth it. No – I just kept the Tokina. But it was a tough call. If Nikon had made the 10-24 about a $700 lens, it would be worth it.

]]> By: Sahib7 http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/comment-page-1/#comment-2156 Sahib7 Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:42:25 +0000 http://sportsphotoguy.com/?p=545#comment-2156 My experience in a nutshell: Tokina: PRO: f2.8 constant, cheaper, a tad sharper (only at 11mm, not at longer focal length) CONTRA: slightly heavier, almost a prime, not as wide as the Nikon (10 vs. 11mm is a huge difference), narrower range (16 vs. 24mm), need to use exposure-compensation a lot (time x and aperture y gives a different exposure at 11mm vs. 16mm), prone to flares Nikon: PRO: zoom range, goes wider, slightly lighter (about 100g), accurate exposure at different focal lengths (time x and aperture y gives the same exposure at 10mm vs. 24mm), almost constant sharpness at all focal lengths (at 11mm a bit worse than the Tokina, but better at 16mm), AF-accurracy is better (at least with my sample), less flares&ghosting, more future-proof cause of AF CONTRA: more expensive (about 200€ in Europe), a tad less sharp at 11mm, no constant aperture and slower (f3,5-4,5 vs. f2.8) My own conclusion: After trying 4(!) different Tokina lenses (all had flaws, decentered or autofocus) I 've tried the Nikon 10-24 (I hesitated because here in Europe the price-difference is quite high and most of the Nikon reviews were not very good for a lens at that price point). After all I will keep the Nikon. Have you kept both? My experience in a nutshell:

Tokina:
PRO: f2.8 constant, cheaper, a tad sharper (only at 11mm, not at longer focal length)
CONTRA: slightly heavier, almost a prime, not as wide as the Nikon (10 vs. 11mm is a huge difference), narrower range (16 vs. 24mm), need to use exposure-compensation a lot (time x and aperture y gives a different exposure at 11mm vs. 16mm), prone to flares

Nikon:
PRO: zoom range, goes wider, slightly lighter (about 100g), accurate exposure at different focal lengths (time x and aperture y gives the same exposure at 10mm vs. 24mm), almost constant sharpness at all focal lengths (at 11mm a bit worse than the Tokina, but better at 16mm), AF-accurracy is better (at least with my sample), less flares&ghosting, more future-proof cause of AF
CONTRA: more expensive (about 200€ in Europe), a tad less sharp at 11mm, no constant aperture and slower (f3,5-4,5 vs. f2.8)

My own conclusion:
After trying 4(!) different Tokina lenses (all had flaws, decentered or autofocus) I ‘ve tried the Nikon 10-24 (I hesitated because here in Europe the price-difference is quite high and most of the Nikon reviews were not very good for a lens at that price point). After all I will keep the Nikon.
Have you kept both?

]]> By: The Sports Photo Guy http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/comment-page-1/#comment-2151 The Sports Photo Guy Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:37:36 +0000 http://sportsphotoguy.com/?p=545#comment-2151 I have. You can get a general idea from the <a href="http://sportsphotoguy.com/all-about-lenses/" rel="nofollow">All About Lenses</a> page. Basically, while I loved the Nikon 10-24 as a general purpose lens, the Tokina was much better suited for sports shooting, thanks to its f2.8 aperture. Never had any AF issues with mine, either. I have. You can get a general idea from the All About Lenses page. Basically, while I loved the Nikon 10-24 as a general purpose lens, the Tokina was much better suited for sports shooting, thanks to its f2.8 aperture. Never had any AF issues with mine, either.

]]> By: Sahib7 http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/comment-page-1/#comment-2150 Sahib7 Fri, 15 Jan 2010 14:20:17 +0000 http://sportsphotoguy.com/?p=545#comment-2150 Have you made a comparison between the Tokina and the Nikon by now? I would be highly interested in your conclusion! THX! Have you made a comparison between the Tokina and the Nikon by now?
I would be highly interested in your conclusion!

THX!

]]> By: Peteyy http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/comment-page-1/#comment-1500 Peteyy Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:11:02 +0000 http://sportsphotoguy.com/?p=545#comment-1500 I own the Nikon 12-24mm and bought the Tokina 11-16mm. I returned the Tokina. The BIG difference: AF-S. The Nikon 12-24mm delivered far fewer OOF images. The Tokina also hunted much much more, especially in lowr light (when you want to leverage the f/2.8 speed) and did not seem to take advanatge of my focus assist light on my SB-800 when employed. I would be interesting to see you compare the 10-24mm and Tokina in this regard. I own the Nikon 12-24mm and bought the Tokina 11-16mm. I returned the Tokina. The BIG difference: AF-S. The Nikon 12-24mm delivered far fewer OOF images. The Tokina also hunted much much more, especially in lowr light (when you want to leverage the f/2.8 speed) and did not seem to take advanatge of my focus assist light on my SB-800 when employed. I would be interesting to see you compare the 10-24mm and Tokina in this regard.

]]> By: Steve http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/comment-page-1/#comment-1282 Steve Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:36:55 +0000 http://sportsphotoguy.com/?p=545#comment-1282 Thanks. Well, if I ever break my 12-24/DX I will get the 10-24. Thanks. Well, if I ever break my 12-24/DX I will get the 10-24.

]]> By: The Sports Photo Guy http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/comment-page-1/#comment-1276 The Sports Photo Guy Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:06:00 +0000 http://sportsphotoguy.com/?p=545#comment-1276 That's a popular question. Frankly, I've never used the Nikon 12-24. At the time it came out, I opted for the Sigma 12-24 for two reasons: one, it was full frame; and two, it had great distortion characteristics compared to what was reported for the Nikon. Later, I switched to the Tokina 11-16 due to its speed (f2.8). I'd recommend <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Ken Rockwell's site</a> for information on how the 12-24 compares, but in a nutshell his conclusions are the same as mine: the Tokina 11-16 and the new Nikon 10-24 are the best choices in DX ultra-wide zooms. That’s a popular question. Frankly, I’ve never used the Nikon 12-24.
At the time it came out, I opted for the Sigma 12-24 for two reasons: one, it was full frame; and two, it had great distortion characteristics compared to what was reported for the Nikon.
Later, I switched to the Tokina 11-16 due to its speed (f2.8).
I’d recommend Ken Rockwell’s site for information on how the 12-24 compares, but in a nutshell his conclusions are the same as mine: the Tokina 11-16 and the new Nikon 10-24 are the best choices in DX ultra-wide zooms.

]]> By: Steve http://sportsphotoguy.com/first-look-nikon-10-24/comment-page-1/#comment-1275 Steve Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:35:27 +0000 http://sportsphotoguy.com/?p=545#comment-1275 Interested in your opinion vs. the lens this replcases, the 12-24 DX F/4. Interested in your opinion vs. the lens this replcases, the 12-24 DX F/4.

]]>