Nikon / Tokina 12-24 f/4 focus speed?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by George, Apr 3, 2005.

  1. George

    George Guest

    I'm considering the Nikon DX AF-S 12-24 f/4 or the Tokina 12-24 f/4...the
    test reports I've seen indicate that the Tokina is an excellent lens in
    terms of optical and build quality. Does anyone know how it compares to the
    Nikon AF-S lens in terms of focus speed?

    TIA,
    George
     
    George, Apr 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. George

    McLeod Guest

    I am shopping between these two as well. Where have you seen test
    results? The Tokina is 1/3 the price of the Nikon, the Sigma is 3/4 of
    the price but you can't use a filter on the front, and the Nikon is
    excellent, but expensive. If the Tokina is not 1/3 the quality of the
    Nikon I would be interested in it but I can't find any tests on it.
     
    McLeod, Apr 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. George

    McLeod Guest

    Focus speed with wide angles=pretty much instantly. The lens doesn't
    have to move much to focus.
     
    McLeod, Apr 3, 2005
    #3
  4. George

    JR Guest


    I had both of these lenses at the same time...The images are near
    identical...Very difficult to tell one from the other. The only
    difference was focus speed...The Nikkor was basicly instant and
    silent....EXTEREMELY fast, but the Tokina was very fast....Not quite as
    fast, BUT still VERY fast, and not as quiet...Not loud, but the Nikkor
    was silent. I returned the Nikkor and kept the Tokina. Even if it was
    only slightley less money, it would still be a good value, but at 1/2
    the price, it was a no brainer.....I Love to Tokina....Build quality is
    excellent as well....

    JR
     
    JR, Apr 3, 2005
    #4
  5. George

    PC Guest

    PC, Apr 4, 2005
    #5
  6. George

    paul Guest


    Any reason not to consider the Sigma 12-24?
     
    paul, Apr 4, 2005
    #6
  7. George

    paul Guest


    I think you can put filters inside on the back, such as color gels I was
    told. The front is too bulbous and includes an irregular shaped shade
    permanently attached. The Sigma is the only full frame capable one.
     
    paul, Apr 4, 2005
    #7
  8. George

    McLeod Guest


    I use filters for digital just to protect my lens front element when
    it's banging around. I don't own a 35mm camera I would use the Sigma
    on and I have read too many reviews saying the individual lens quality
    can vary from very good to absolute garbage so the Sigma is out of the
    running.
     
    McLeod, Apr 4, 2005
    #8
  9. George

    George Guest

    Several for me...the Sigma costs more, isn't constant aperture, and I've
    never been
    impressed with Sigma build quality. (BTW, try a search on eBay for "broken"
    or
    "needs repair" in the lens category...sometimes I do that looking for a lens
    to get a
    part from or for some non-photographic need...I've been amazed at how many
    Sigma
    lenses pop up on such a search and it is usually major stuff, not oily
    diaphragm blades.)

    But, I do thank you for mentioning an alternative choice...the Sigma would
    bear consideration
    for someone who wants to use the lens on a 35mm camera as well and doesn't
    care about
    the changing aperture (i.e., never uses it for carefully controlled studio
    shots).

    George
     
    George, Apr 5, 2005
    #9
  10. George

    George Guest

    That's the one...I didn't see anything about focus speed in the article.
    Did I miss it?

    Also, the article gave me another question: Does the Nikon mount version
    have an
    AF/M focus switch or the same clutch mechanism as the tested Canon mount
    version?
    It sounds like the clutch is nice once you get used to it.

    George
     
    George, Apr 5, 2005
    #10
  11. George

    George Guest

    I followed a few links to reviews from postings on dpreview (if I remember,
    they were foreign (to the U.S.) websites..French? and/or Japanese? but in
    English) and they actually rated the Tokina higher than the Nikon on both
    optical
    and build quality (!!!). I think the $$$ comparison is more like $500 (T)
    vs.
    $800 (N). Of course, I'd hold off until I read some reviews from sites that
    I
    am familiar with, but the Tokina sounds very promising. I know they've had
    their ups and downs in terms of optical quality of various designs but I've
    never
    heard anything bad about their mechanical build quality.

    George
     
    George, Apr 5, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.