What are the differences between this and Tokina's 12-24mm zoom? Are there any differences in terms of quality that I should know about, or can I safely consider only the specifications of the two lenses?
1192437
I haven't used either of the lenses mentioned here but I thought I'd point out something that hasn't been mentioned yet. You say the 12-24 has an aperture range of f4-f5.6, and the 11-16 has a range of f2.8-f22. Actually- in the 12-24, the numbers you mention are the maximum aperture settings. At 12mm it opens up to f4 max, and at 24mm it opens up to f5.6 max. At any zoom range it would stop down to probably f22. So the 12-24 is not limited to only f4-f5.6 as this post suggests. The 11-17 lens has a constant maximum aperture of f2.8 through its whole zoom range, and also stops down to f22. So both of these two lenses have a normal range of apertures, but the 11-17 opens up to a bigger f2.8. Just thought I'd point that out if anyone was misled...
790657
Mainly price. The Rokinon lenses are very good. I own a 35 and 24 Rokinon as well as some Canons. I think they perform extremely well.
1625585
You can consider the specifications, both lenses are very highly reviewed. You are right, you are making a choice between zoom range and aperture. For me aperture always wins, but, that is me.
1642454
Hi, I am using the amazing Tokina 11-16 mm on my Nikon D80, the autofocus works fine, great lens.
1664836
This is generally seen as a direct upgrade from the 18-55 Kit lens. It covers almost the same focal lengths, but with wider aperture (more possible light), better autofocus, and better overall image quality. If you like the zoom range on the kit lens but are unsatisfied with the images that come from it, this is a lens you should consider.
284509
It is a good all around lens, however it´s not particularly a wide angle. If you are really into landscape photography and you already have a standard zoom lens, i recomend to go for a tokina 11-16 or a sigma 10-20. I´ve owned the second one, and if you get a good copy, it´s one of the best values in the market for DX cameras.
41294
the angle-of-view has already been answered. Both lenses, in addition to the other M.Zuiko fixed focal-length lenses, offer more digital info than a human eye can resolve. I own the 12mm, 45mm and 75mm m. Zuikos as well as two Panasonic zooms. I can print beautiful 16 x 20 prints that are easily as "crisp" as files from my old Canon EOS system. I'm a retired photographer (44 yrs.)/photo instructor (29 yrs.) who the learned the craft in the darkroom, and made a relatively smooth transition to digital. In my studied opinion, pick the one that lets you capture an image the way "you see." The quality is there for both. Finally, both lenses at f/1.8 and f/2.0, offer essentially the same light-gathering ability. I would suggest the 12mm because it greatly increases your creative options with wide-angle. How you "see."
2200566
Personally, I chose the Tonika lens over the canon. I've taken it to Southeast Asia, done a wedding, and a few photoshoots and I have to say that I've been extremely impressed with the len's range as well as speed. It's definitely produced some amazing shots and I have zero regrets! I can say that it's done more for me in portrait photography vs landscape. If you're looking to get a wide angle for landscape than go with the canon simply for its extra mm.
1441507
i have the d80 with the 18-70 dx, the 70-300 ed, and the 50 1.8 d nikkors, plus the tokina 12-24 and the tamron 28-75 f/2.8. what glass you put on your d80 to start with should depend on intended uses and experience level. if all you want is an all-in-one lens, go for the 18-135 kit, unless you can afford the 18-200 vr. the 24-120 VR is another sweet after-market option if you go body-only and just want one lens, but you'd probably be better off, however, with either the 18-55 or the 18-70, plus the 55-200 vr. for the size, weight, and cost, they're very good for plastic consumer lenses. the downside is they're fairly slow for (D)SLR lenses, due to narrow apertures at the long end. if low-light photography or action sports is your bag, skip the nikkors altogether unless you can afford the 17-55 2.8 and/or the 70-200 VR. get the d80 body and grab a sigma or tamron 2.8. if w/a is your thing, i'd get one of the 18s (-55, -70, -135, -200) and pair it with the tokina 12-24 or the sigma 10-20. if you're more of a telephoto person, get the 18-55 or -70 and pair it with the inexpensive 70-300 non-vr g lens. the money you save over the ed or vr versions can go toward a good tripod -- unless you really think you're gonna be doing a lot of handheld shooting at 300mm. for macro and portrait work, consider again going body-only with the d80, getting the $100 50 1.8 prime, and maybe the sigma 30, the nikkor 60, and the tamron 90 to round out your selection, which would give you a nice, sharp range. if all of this seems too complicated, look at a fixed-zoom P&S or the d40/18-55 combo.
92186
Hello, other than 4mm in the zoom and the nano coating on the 24-70, nothing. If u wanna get technical they are completely different parts internally but they perform almost identically. I am very familiar with both lenses and they both have their ups and downs however I am seeing a lot of the 24-70's having soft focus issues particularly wide open. This can be repaired and we do have access to fix this problem it is a hassle. The 28-70 does not have this problem. The 28-70's major flaw is the squeaky AF. But this is a easy fix. Personally I would save the money and get the 28-70.
1907928
I am sorry - I did not even investigate the kit lens. I had a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 which I was going to use with the camera. (But I opted for the 24-70 2.8 rather than the f4 because I do a lot of indoor work (I am NOT a pro), and am VERY happy. I recently shot at a conference with high ISO and both these lenses, without a flash. Very pleased with the results).
2212347
Here is a REALLY obvious one. You can switch between manual and autofocus on this lense by pushing and pulling the autofocus ring in or out. It reads AF (autofocus) when pulled out, MF when pulled back in. This is distinct to Tokina, so not intuitive if you're used to other lenses. This lens autofocuses extremely well on my D7000 - it's my sharpest lens.
2004640
Which one did you finish up with? I'm interested because you said that you shoot mainly lanscapes, so why would you part with the 17-40mm? If your option had been for the 16-35mm f2.8L, I could have understood the reason, but a 24mm lens on any new camera (assuming it's not a film body, 5D or 1Ds) is only going to give you 31mm (1D) or 38mm (the rest). Not much good for landscape work.BTW, the 24-70mm eats the 24-105mm alive when it comes to contrast and sharpness, IS or not!
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
1866245
There is a version for DX, the Tokina 11-17 F2.8, that is highly regarded. I have it and can use it on a full-frame camera, but had I known I was going to get a full-frame so quickly I would have purchased the FX version. The issue is that your camera relies on a focus motor in the lens, as I recall. If auto-focus is important to you, be sure you purchase a lens with a motor.
219910
Its a great lens but obviously very different from the 10-18mm f4. I use the 24mm Zeiss almost exclusively indoors because it gets me to an equivalent focal length close to 35mm and helps with low light because of the wide 1.8 aperture. It also gets the nice shallow depth of field with that wide aperture and nice bokeh. I would love to own the 10-18 f4 but it would really be for a totally different purpose - super wide outdoor landscapes. Also, it's a slower lens with that f4 aperture and won't get a shallow depth of field under really any circumstances.
151089
I am not sure, I am using mine with a Canon Rebel XTI and a Sigma DC 18-200 3.5-6.3 and also with a Tokina 100-400 mm. Some times at the longer focal lengths you have to use manual focus. I have had relatively decent performance particularly with the 18-200 lens. Since my 100-400 goes past your 75-300 youi may not have to revert to manual focus, as I am not sure at what point my auto focus won't work. I actually just bought a Sony HX 300 which zooms from 24 mm to 1200 mm, but I haven't had a chance to really check to see what kind of quality pictures I can get. I hope that this is helpful. I think that if you Google it you may be able to get some more definitive information. I am not sure, I am using mine with a Canon Rebel XTI and a Sigma DC 18-200 3.5-6.3 and also with a Tokina 100-400 mm. Some times at the longer focal lengths you have to use manual focus. I have had relatively decent performance particularly with the 18-200 lens. Since my 100-400 goes past your 75-300 youi may not have to revert to manual focus, as I am not sure at what point my auto focus won't work. I actually just bought a Sony HX 300 which zooms from 24 mm to 1200 mm, but I haven't had a chance to really check to see what kind of quality pictures I can get. I hope that this is... » Read More I am not sure, I am using mine with a Canon Rebel XTI and a Sigma DC 18-200 3.5-6.3 and also with a Tokina 100-400 mm. Some times at the longer focal lengths you have to use manual focus. I have had relatively decent performance particularly with the 18-200 lens. Since my 100-400 goes past your 75-300 youi may not have to revert to manual focus, as I am not sure at what point my auto focus won't work. I actually just bought a Sony HX 300 which zooms from 24 mm to 1200 mm, but I haven't had a chance to really check to see what kind of quality pictures I can get. I hope that this is helpful. I think that if you Google it you may be able to get some more definitive information. « Show Less