Tokina ATX glass vs Nikon DX

[digi.film]

Hi. Been absent from school for awhile. Do I need to bring a doctors excuse?

I recently sold off 2 digital bodies, 3 film bodies, and several lenses to help finance a new Fuji S5. I could have easily got a D300 instead... newer technology and such, but I've lusted after the S5 for so long I stuck with my gut.

My lens collection is pretty lean as far as "fast" glass is concerned, so now I'm looking at practical (meaning practical for me) choices to start putting a small arsenal of lens' together. To be frank, all the talk of... "you must have f/1.2", or ... "you must have f/1.4" ... or, ... "you must spend US$1000 to US$1500 on one lens" ... is really putting me off, so I'm feeling rebelious towards the elitist masses. I say... f/1.8, f/2, f/2.8, f/4 is not bad. Then the question I always have to ask them (in my mind), and myself is... are you making money at this, to afford such fine "Pro" glass, or are you just reading to much into what gets posted on forums and Flickr groups, and just feel you need to keep up with the gearheads.... you actually believe you really need to spend that much money on one lens when for the same amount you could get 2 or possibly 3 fine lens', granted maybe a little slower, but would better cover the range or genre in which you wish to devote your imagery too?

Hence, I've started to look at Tokina's line of lens', and specifically the 12-24mm f/4 as my first acquisition. I'm asking here if anyone has owned this lens, as opposed to the Nikon 12-24mm which costs twice as much or more, and what their experiences have been with, well... to be fair, either actually.

I've heard some good things about Tokina recently, one that really impressed me being about the history of the company in that they are ex-Nikon lens engineers.

[Cuchulainn]

When I was in the market for a 12-24 I read a many reviews and threads before heading to the store. People seemed to be split 3 ways about the 2 lenses, some preferred the Nikon, some the Tokina, some couldn't see any significant difference. I actually thought the Nikon was a little softer around the edges. After mentioning my thoughts to the store owner he showed me a few photos one of his employees had taken with the Nikon and pointed out that softness. I actually prefered the build quality of the Tokina lens.

This thread has a good discussion on both lenses...

http://tinyurl.com/6bsmnc

And some user reviews on both can be found here...

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php

But I would strongly encourage you to try them both as opinions vary widely and are pretty evenly split.

As far as the question about glass..

There are some very average photographers running around with very expensive "pro" gear and some truly outstanding ones running around with "bargain" gear. Actually there are some GWC's running around with some very expensive "pro" gear simply because they can afford it.

I don't doubt that "pro" glass would probably help an outstanding photographer. But does it really do much for an average photographer other than make the average images a little sharper? There are guys out there who can take images with a kit lens that would make many (most?) of us green with envy.

[digi.film]

Thanks for your reply. I will check out the links you posted.

After I posted this thread, I realized I may have posted in the wrong forum section, so I suppose my question should relate to how this lens may perform on the Fuji S5 specifically, as this is the Fuji Camera forum.

[kirbinster]

Well I used to feel the same way you do, until I proved myself wrong. I was out shooting some deer in the backyard yesterday. I took some shots with my Nikkor 18-200VR which is only f/5.6 at the long end and I took others with my Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 (non-VR) all handheld. The ones with the fast lens were just so much sharper. Further, I was able to get much tighter depth of field with the fast lens than the slower one. The choice is yours, but there is a reason fast lens cost more money.

[jdepould]

You can find fast and/or high quality glass for under $1000, it's just more difficult for F mount than EOS. For some reason Nikon refuses to make good f/4 glass (12-24 being the exception). I'm a big fan of the Tokina, from what I've seen it's optically equivalent to the Nikkor, which costs twice as much. I've handled the Tokina and really liked the feel too. As a side note, Hoya has a stake in Tokina, and they're the biggest glass manufacturer in the world, which should tell you something.

The Nikon 80-200 is another stellar lens, new they run about $900, but you can find clean used copies for $500. In the normal zoom range, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is popular, and goes for about $400 new.

Primes are another option, although there isn't a whole lot in the way of good wide-angles for crop sensors. I've been happy with my 24, which runs $200-300 used.

[digi.film]

Thanks for replying kirbinster and jdepould.

kirbinster... not that I'm interested in one, but some images in the D300 brochure were shot with a 18-200 VR and they are great! I also read somewhere that the 2007 photo of the year was taken using the same lens. Just goes to show that the adage... "in the right hands"... is true!

The original plan was to not get any DX format lenses at all for the F mount side of my house, as I have a "few" Nikon film bodies as well. I was going to reserve all the digital only gear for the Pentax side of my house, but I am pretty much sold on the Tokina so I have reconsidered at least that one DX lens for the S5 and any future F mount digital bodies that may be possibilities in the future. I have been watching them on eBay and KEH... they seem to hold their resale value quite well, used ones averaging around $400. Since a new one is $499 (@ B&H), perspectively a mere $100 more, that seems the better route to go, and I get a warranty. I considered the Nikon 14-24mm but $1500 is just out of the question, and I'm not a fan of the G lens'. I'm sort of old skool in that I'd prefer an aperture ring whenever possible.

I hear what you are both saying regarding the 80-200mm, I just don't know if I would use a lens that long very much. Plus, I do have the older, pre D AF 70-210 f/4. I have been pleased with it's performance when I do use it, so I suppose that one will do for now.

Cuchulainn... what is a GWC?

FYI, these are the lens' that are currently on my "check into / consideration" list:

Tokina 12-24 f/4
Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 Macro (D)
Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 (D), and one of the older 105mm Micro's.
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 (D)
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 (D)

Other than the addition of a super/ultra wide and/or fisheye, prime or zoom, I think the above "kit" will work out fine for my interests... at this time. I think it is a well rounded and practical mix of zooms and primes. What might you think of these choices?

The lens' I do have to work with at this time are:

Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Series E (it's in pretty bad shape -fungus- but it was a freebie)
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 Ai-S (came with the FE2 - used somewhat regularly)
Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 Ai-S (came with the FM2n - used quite a bit)
Nikkor AF 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 D ED (came with the F4 - used occasionally)
Tamron 24-70mm f/3.3-5.6 ASP (came with the F90x - I've never used it)
Sigma 28-70 f/2.8-4.0 (currently the lens I use the most)
Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 Macro D (came with the F80 - used occasionally)
Nikon 75-150mm Series E (another freebie in pretty bad shape -fungus-loose zoom- but apparently approaching collectors item status)
Nikkor AF 70-210mm F/4 (pre D - used infrequently)

Quite a hodge podge (of current glass) there, eh?

[jdepould]

Obviously if you don't think a focal length is useful it would be silly to purchase.

On the 24-85, you might want to look for the f/3.5-5.6 AF-S version. I had one and it was pretty good, although the 24-70 Tamron you already have might make that redundant.

[digi.film]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Obviously if you don't think a focal length is useful it would be silly to purchase.

Useful to me... at this time. Not saying it wouldn't be in the future. I am planning on keeping the 70-210 for now.

Originally Posted by jdepould

On the 24-85, you might want to look for the f/3.5-5.6 AF-S version. I had one and it was pretty good, although the 24-70 Tamron you already have might make that redundant.

Yes, I have read Thom Hogans review of that lens, and was impressed by what he said about it even though it is considered a "slow" lens, but here again I prefer the D type lens when they are available.

I understand the redundancy question in regards to lens' I currently have. What I see in the 24-85 D is a good, faster, one lens "walk-around" range that also has the Macro capability, as opposed to the Sigma and Tamron which does not have that. I also see it as an extension of the 12-24. Some of the lens' I currently have will be sold or passed on to family members as they are "replaced" to curb that redundancy.

[Cuchulainn]

Originally Posted by digi.film

Cuchulainn... what is a GWC?

GWC= Guy With Camera. Generally a derogatory term. I picked it up from some models I have worked with. They talk about photographers vs. GWC's who contact them for photos.

http://www.nikonnexus.com/index.php?...d=20&Itemid=36

I actually ran into one of these at a Painting with Light workshop that did feature nude models. Most everyone was very professional about it and took some very tasteful photos, but one dude ran back and forth about 3 feet from the model with his camera in full auto at 6fps every time the lights came back up.

[digi.film]

Originally Posted by Cuchulainn

GWC= Guy With Camera. Generally a derogatory term. I picked it up from some models I have worked with. They talk about photographers vs. GWC's who contact them for photos.

http://www.nikonnexus.com/index.php?...d=20&Itemid=36

I actually ran into one of these at a Painting with Light workshop that did feature nude models. Most everyone was very professional about it and took some very tasteful photos, but one dude ran back and forth about 3 feet from the model with his camera in full auto at 6fps every time the lights came back up.

Ah! Got it!

This snip from the article is great and says a mouthful... "A photographer will shoot for art while a GWC will shoot for his pleasure."

It's been, well... a long time since I've shot a nude. Like... B.D. (before digital) long time. Isn't the term... "Human Form" now used? Very PC. I have idea's for nudes, maybe even uncommon idea's, but nowadays I think I'd be a tad mortified, for lack of a better word.