12-24mm f/4G AF-S DX IF-ED Nikkor Experience

[Tom Swaman]

I am ISO comments on the 12-24mm f/4G AF-S DX IF-ED Nikkor. I was intrigued by the new 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom, but there is no way to easily use a polarizing filter with this lens and it weighs about twice that of the 12-24mm f/4G. So, how is the 12-24mm f/4G??

Thanks for your help.
Tom

[Nikonfreak]

The 12-24 is an excellent lens. I would say that it and the Tokina 12-24 are very close in image quality with probably the Nikon barely eeking out the Tokina, but it would depend on lens sample variation.

I have lots of examples of images using this lens here...

Stage 1 - 9619 photo - Julio Sant photos at pbase.com

and

Home

If you see a wide angle shot, it was done using the 12-24

Such as Sample Images

IN the middle of the page, that image was published in a University of Miami ad for the Bank United Center promo.

This is another image... Stage 2 - 9610 photo - Julio Sant photos at pbase.com

The lens distorts. (Don't fall over from the shock...I know) That's the life of uber wide.. The Sigma verision is a bit slower aperature wise, but it has less distortion visible than the Nikon or the Tokina. The use of filters with the Sigma is impossible.

Other than that it's a great lens. There are some CA or purple fringing issues depending on where the light is coming from in your image or if it's uber high contrast in the image. Sample variation has some play here also IMO.

The lens' quality issues were harder to spot on a D100 than a D200 (for obvious reasons) but it's still an excellent lens. If you want to save a few bucks, get the Tokina. You won't be missing much by doing so.

LBA20071746BAs800x600.jpg photo - Julio Sant photos at pbase.com

Room / Scenery photo - Julio Sant photos at pbase.com

Thom Hogan has a review of the lens.
Here...
12-24 AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Enjoy...

Julio

[Tom Swaman]

Julio,

Thank you and I will review everything you posted. I was watching the new Nikkor 13-24mm F/2.8G and decided that regardless of how this may be optically, it has one major deficience. You cannot put a polarizing filter on this lens and I consider this to be a necessity for a super wide angle lens used out-of-doors. I plan to get the new 24-70mm as soon as it is available so I am considering a wide angle addition and the 17-35 is discontinued and I have a great copy of the 17-44.

Much appreciation,
Tom

[Nikonfreak]

Yep, I'm looking at that 14-24 f/2.8 with interest as well, but the odd thing is that I'm kind of debating as to when I'd need it at f/2.8 ... When I do stage shots like the ones you see, I'm rarely wide open and I drag the shutter on a tripod. Many of my concert stage shots of illumination are at f/4.5 - 6.3 and 1/20 to 1/60

Julio

[gaopa2]

Tom, I agree with what Julio said about the Nikkor 12-24. I had the Tokina 12-24 and sold it to buy the Nikkor version. Truth to tell, I cannot tell a difference in the images. Both lenses have CA or purple fringe and both distort on the wide end. I use a PhotoShop plug in called PT Lens which is very helpful in correction both the distortion and CA. I keep the 12-24 mounted on one of my D200 bodies and use it on a regular basis. I find it has less CA and is sharper as I stop down. When outside I shoot it at f8. It really is a nice lens.

Today, using my SB-800 I took this photo. I have attached the before and after PS and PT Lens. Cheers, Bill P.

[Tom Swaman]

Bill,

Thanks for the information. Your shot is great and the editing better.

Having read what you and Julio wrote plus the reviews I have read, I am a bit concerned about sharpness at 12mm, distortion at 12mm and the quality of the mount. I think I shall rent the lens and do some experimenting to convince myself one way or the other. If I buy this lens, I am probably going to sell my 17-55mm f/2.8. This lens is soooo good and I do not want to compromise. I just do not need the 12-24mm, 24-70mm and the 17-55mm for my shooting needs. If I have to compromise, I would prefer to give up the super wide angle as I do not use this enough.

Much appreciation for the help,
Tom

[gaopa2]

Oh, Tom.... don't sell your 17-55/2.8! While I like the 12-24, I would not get rid of my 17-55 to get one. My 17-55/2.8 is my "bread and butter" photojournalism lens ( I do freelance work in retirement). I regard my 12-24 as a specialty lens. The distortion on the 12-24 can clearly be seen in images like the one I posted and that is why I wanted it seen. Thank goodness for PT Lens software! You thought of rention the 12-24 is a good idea, I think.

Another good option is the Tokina 12-24/4 lens. I had one and loved it, but really wanted the Nikkor. Truth to tell, I can't see that the Nikor is any better than the Tokina. A good used Tokina 12-24 can be found for $400. Good luck! Bill P.

[Jojox]

What about the Sigma 10-20? I ordered this lens, don't have it yet, but have seen lots of great images from it. It has a filter thread, although large at 77mm.

[Tom Swaman]

Bill,

I hear you loud and clear and I know you gave me sound advice. I absolutely love my 17-55mm f/2.8. My results with this lens are fantastic. This lens is sharp as a tack. I recently printed some head and shoulder casual portraits of an older man. I had to tone down the detail as you could see every vein in his skin and even in his tongue as his mouth was slightly open. The print was only an 8 X 10 also.

My entire decision hinges on whether the new 24-70mm f/2.8 is a top-notch performer. So, I shall just wait and see. By the way, I am able to rent the 12-24mm for $25 per day. I do not consider this to be a high price if the rental lens is in good shape.

Bill thanks again and Happy Labor Day.
Tom

[Tom Swaman]

Jojox,

In case you are not aware of this, almost all of the Nikon f/2.8 lens filter threads are 77mm so this is a routinely available filter size.

Tom