Opinions on the Nikon 12-24/f4?
- Thread starter ripclaw
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 106
- Name
- Michael
- Edit My Images
- No
Awesome lens, awesome, did I say awesome?Well it's awesome
DD
I guess that's a pretty clear opinion
The reason I was asking is cause it's still at a similar price second hand compared to let's say a new Tokina 11-16. But generally I prefer the Nikon kit over third party (average experiences with Sigma lenses...)Michael
- Messages
- 286
- Edit My Images
- Yes
yeah, lovely lens. found it wonderfully sharp at 12mm f8ish. although i only rented it for a specific purpose, but it performed wonderfully.
build wise its not as pro spec as say the 17-55, but like a slightly weightier 24-85afs (if you've ever used one) in terms of how it feels.
build wise its not as pro spec as say the 17-55, but like a slightly weightier 24-85afs (if you've ever used one) in terms of how it feels.
- Messages
- 9,521
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've seen loads of reviews of similar lenses over the years (though not recently I admit) and in all the ones I've seen the Nikon came first - but was 'pricey'
Unless it's damaged, then a 2nd hand one is just as good as a new one to me - just with a big saving
DD
Unless it's damaged, then a 2nd hand one is just as good as a new one to me - just with a big saving
DD
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 6,671
- Name
- Wail
- Edit My Images
- No
I bought it when it first came out - just under £1,000 then
Awesome lens, awesome, did I say awesome?
DD
Holly bananas, are you sure you didn't pay for the 14-24 /2.8 :shrug:
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Bought my 12-24 off Taz for £450 and have to say it's already paid for itself in the two months I've had it with what it's allowed me to do. It's a fantastic lens, miles better than the Sigma 10-20mm (spit)
Compared to the Tokina 12-24 it's probably a tad better built, but by a miniscule amount, and optically the same. There's very little in it. Compared to the Sigma it's a world apart - the Siggy stinks
I use mine on a D200; focussing is quick and very accurate and IQ is fantastic. Wide open and at 5.6 yuo do get a tad of edge distortion in the corners when objects are very close to the lens but that's what happens on just about every mid-price wide-angle. For landscape work when you're shooting on a tripod at narrow apertures it's the dog's nuts.
At 24mm it's a great portrat lens to get a wide-angle effect without stupid distortion.
For landscape work it's wide enough for just about any vista; for portraiture then be prepared to deal with crazy, fisheye-esque distortion that's part-and-parcel of using this type of lens, especially when close up.
I shot this using it yesterday for a magazine feature - no hood so there may be a little flare in the top right This is straight out of the D200 set to vivid with no sharpening. Exposure is f/8 @ 1/400th, ISO 200 with -0.3EV at 12mm
Compared to the Tokina 12-24 it's probably a tad better built, but by a miniscule amount, and optically the same. There's very little in it. Compared to the Sigma it's a world apart - the Siggy stinks
I use mine on a D200; focussing is quick and very accurate and IQ is fantastic. Wide open and at 5.6 yuo do get a tad of edge distortion in the corners when objects are very close to the lens but that's what happens on just about every mid-price wide-angle. For landscape work when you're shooting on a tripod at narrow apertures it's the dog's nuts.
At 24mm it's a great portrat lens to get a wide-angle effect without stupid distortion.
For landscape work it's wide enough for just about any vista; for portraiture then be prepared to deal with crazy, fisheye-esque distortion that's part-and-parcel of using this type of lens, especially when close up.
I shot this using it yesterday for a magazine feature - no hood so there may be a little flare in the top right
This is straight out of the D200 set to vivid with no sharpening. Exposure is f/8 @ 1/400th, ISO 200 with -0.3EV at 12mm