Tokina AT-X 12-24mm AF Pro DX Reviews

Aug 1st, 2006bv

Price Paid
400

Product Understanding
Good

Time Owned
Less than a year

Sturdy build lens works nice on a Nikon D200, some CA at 12-14mm range between f4-f8. Sharpness and contrast are good and very from f5,6 onwards.
The lens phrone to flare more than the Nikkor AFS 18-70 but it's somewhat better in this respect than the SIGMA EX 15-30mm. CA is also less.

From 19mm and onwards you could use it on a 35mm body. If you use f/5,6 or smaller even the corners are ok on Provia 100 F. It compares well to the Nikkor 20-35mm f2,8. Not quit essential for a wide-angle but bokeh is good. No color fringing in the out of focus areas as seen by the Nikkor 20-35mm f2,8 and other internal-focus-designs. Highly recommended, a Nikkor 12-24 cost 2,5 times as much... This Tokina is nearly as good. Read also Photomagazine and Color Photo.
Aug 28th, 2006rpcrowe

Price Paid
$500 USD

Product Understanding
Good

Time Owned
Less than a year

Until I purchased the Tokina AT-X 12-24mm AF Pro DX; my wide lens was the Canon 17-40mm f/4L. The Canon lens was just not wide enough and only gave me an additional 7mm over my 24-70mm f/2.8L. It was not worth keeping and carrying an expensive and relatively heavy lens for only a 7mm benefit. I have never regretted replacing the 17-40L with my Tokina! I use the Tokina more than I ever used the 17-40L. It is extremely sharp and contrasty; especially at f/5.6 or smaller - but very acceptable wide open. Its build, like most other Tokina AT-X Pro lenses, is superb. I informally tested this lens against the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 and prefer the Tokina despite the fact that the Canon is 2mm wider. I always use the supplied lens hood and have not been troubled by flare. I have been thrilled by the image quality of only a few lenses and the Tokina is certainly one of these. I carry the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 70-200mm f/4L along with my Tokina. So you see, the Tokina is in some pretty darn good company and it holds its own very well.
Oct 11th, 2006brytondale

Price Paid
599

Product Understanding
Good

Time Owned
Less than a week

I bought the Sigma 10-20mm lens from a local camera store, thinking it would probably be the best of the three ultra wide zooms available from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. I was flat out wrong. You see, I also did an in store test of all 3 of these lenses when I made this purchase. I used my own camera; a Canon 10D. I was sure to use shutter speeds fast enough to not require a tripod and no flash for all the shots. For each lens I did an in the store shot and an 'out the window' shot. Granted, this test did shoot all the lenses at only the wide open aperture, but I figure that's how I'll most likely use the lens anyway. Yes, it's not a real scientific type of analysis, but I am confident what I saw did not lie to me. Here's my findings:

Tokina 12-24mm f/4.0:
This lens was the sharpest by a wide, wide margin. It showed tremendous detail where the other two lenses showed nothing. However, the chromatic aberation (color fringe) was also tremendous. Yeah, I know the camera raw plugin has some capabilities to correct this, but one, I don't want to d*ck with every photo like that and two, I've found it doesn't do a completely thorough job as it will fix the problem in one are and introduce it in another. You just can't beat high quality glass that doesn't need Photoshop fixes. So this lens was a no go.

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM:
This lens had the least chromatic aberation. However, the shots were noticeably softer. Compared to the other two lenses, it looked like I was shooting through a stackup of 3 or 4 uv filters. Photoshop sharpening did help, but it can't change the fact that detail that wasn't there to begin with, isn't going to magically show up from any amount of sharpeing. I originally bought this lens, but returned it after I reviewed my test images and went back to get the Tamron.

Tamron 11 - 18mm f/4.5-5.6 XR DI-II LD:
Granted, this lens costs about $100 more than the other two, but to me this lens had the best comprimise of sharpness/ resolving power and least chromatic aberation. I've had it for a few months now. It does seem to hunt a bit for focus, which I guess I can live with. I didn't use the other two lenses enough to tell if they had this same issue. Perpahs they don't as they both are f/4 and this lens is an f/4.5 at the wide end.
Jun 29th, 2007Kent

Price Paid
450,-

Product Understanding
Good

Time Owned
Less than a year

Heureka! I was thinking a lot if I needed this lens or not. Finally, I have bought it, thank God! It is such a great glass that I dare to say it is the best lens I have! Fantastic!
Dec 24th, 2007quikie22

Price Paid
$450 USD

Product Understanding
Good

Time Owned
More than a year

Handling: Solidly built. Will probably last a lifetime. Zooming is tight but irregular with spots of looseness. Focusing is smooth and fluid but not a classic manual focus lens.

Optical quality: Acceptable results wide open, sharpness best around f5.6 to f8. Chromatic aberration is quite obvious especially at wide end and wide open. Colour and contrast is very good.

Overall: A very good lens for the price. Comparable to even the Nikon 12-24. Almost 50% of my shots are taken with this lens. A very capable lens.

Cons: Not wide enough? Maybe if it could go to 10mm. CA may degrade image at wide open setting.
Dec 25th, 2008Elingles

Price Paid
350

Product Understanding
Average

Time Owned
More than a year

A very well built lens (much better than most Canon lenses and on a par with its Nikon equivalent), this lens is an automatic choice for those who will not use this zoom range enough to warrant the far greater cost of the Nikkor.

Sharpness is very good (not quite excellent) but distortion is a little high (although not excessive for such a wide-angle lens).

Write a Review

You must be logged-in or registered to add a review.

photodo Stats

1102 lenses
428 MTF tests
74 in-depth        photodo reviews
100+ users join each day

Help the lens community by reviewing or rating a lens today via our lens search