Nikon 12-24 vs Tokina 12-24

Like the title says, is the Nikon worth the extra money? I've narrowed my choice of new lens to one of these. While the extra money isn't really all that big of a deal, I'd love to save money wherever possible. I know that the Nikon is outstanding and I will be very pleased, my question is will I have any regrets with the Tokina in the long run. Just wondering if any of you guys have any experience with these lenses.

Dave

Like the title says, is the Nikon worth the extra money? I've narrowed my choice of new lens to one of these. While the extra money isn't really all that big of a deal, I'd love to save money wherever possible. I know that the Nikon is outstanding and I will be very pleased, my question is will I have any regrets with the Tokina in the long run. Just wondering if any of you guys have any experience with these lenses.

 

Dave

I can't speak for the Nikon but I used the Tokina for awhile in an Ikelite housing. I used the six inch dome and was less than pleased with the results. I've been blown away by the quality of the 10-17 though. I went to an eight inch dome with the 10-17 and am thrilled. The Tokina is fine in terms of build quality. The 12-24 was only moderate in terms of above water sharpness. Hope this helps in some way.

Chris

I went through the same process about 4 months ago, after reading all the reviews, I decided on the Tokina 12-24. All the reviews put the Nikon ahead only by a hair and the general consensus was Tokina was better value and the avg photographer can't tell the difference. So far, I'm very happy.

If your using Sea & Sea:

18-70 zoom gear will fit, but since the zoom ring is opposite Nikon lenses, you need to remover the o-ring from the gear. I use velcro tape over the zoom ring to get grip on the gear.

I use ext ring 40 & +2 diopter w/ big dome and am happy with corner sharpness.

Take care,

John

I have owned both. If you nitpick enough, you can find corner sharpness a "tad" better on the nikon version.

$500 is better worth spent elsewhere.

Above the water, the Nikon 12-24 is truly exceptional lens, and worth every penny (but it won't work with a D300...).

Below it's not so good: many dome ports are poorly matched to this lens, and the combination of that with a relatively small depth of field leaves the edges of images soft. I would guess that the Tokina has similar drawbacks, but as they are inherent in the focal length, and dominate images, the cheaper lens would be just as useful at similar stops.

The solution is a properly placed large-diameter dome, which makes for a bulky system in the water.

Tim

B)

Above the water, the Nikon 12-24 is truly exceptional lens, and worth every penny (but it won't work with a D300...).

Really? I've been using the 12-24 with my D200, so why wouldn't it work with the soon to be released D300?

(but it won't work with a D300...).

This is incorrect. The Nikon (or Tokina) 12-24mm will work with a D300, just not the D3. The D300 is still a cropped sensor like the D200/D100/D70/D80/D40/D50.

At least for the Nikon, the 12-24 will work fine even on full frame. At some point in the zoom range (guessing around <15mm) it will start to vigenette but otherwise it works great. This is one of the few DX lenses that has a substantal usable range on a full frame camera. Unlike Canon lenses, Nikon DX lenses function and fit perfectly on film or full-frame cameras. If you have a DX camera there is no future proof solution that gets you as wide that can be used UW. (The Sigma 12-24mm is too thick for most domes).

If it were my money I'd get the Tokina. The quality difference is small and the cost is large. For $500 you could get the 10.5mm or 10-17mm too!

I bought the Nikon when it was the ONLY WA zoom around. Now we have choices. Its a nice lens.