Wideangle: 12-24 f4, or 14-24 f2.8 == Is the 2.8 worth it?

Phoenix

Remember the 12-24 is a DX lens. and the 14-24 is an FX lens. The quality of the 14-24 seams to be fantastic but it is an unwieldy monster. I am very happy with my 12-24. f4 or f2.8 is not much of a deal for me on a wide angle. Inside you can use a lower shutter speed than a longer lens. All my long lenses though are f2.8. Got rid of my sigma 10-20. The irregularity of the distortion was not corrected in software.

Edmond

depends. 12-24 Nikon and Tokina f/4s are DX only. 14-24 works best on FX. you can put one on a DX body, but since it's not actually that wide (21mm) in that format, you'd be better off with a sigma 10-20 or tokina 11-16 if you want w-i-d-e.

the 14-24 is worth it if a) you can afford it; b) you shoot with a d3 or d700; or c) you're mainly using it for indoor use (it wont accept filters). the 14-24's IQ is better than any of its competitors, but it may well outresolve DX sensors, so to get the most out of it, you need to use it on an FX body.

your other question, is 2.8 on a wide-angle worth it? depends on what you shoot. if i didnt already have the tokina 12- 24, i'd probably scoop up the 11-16 for low-light indoor stuff like concerts. but for outdoorsy landscape stuff, which is how i typically use the tokina, i generally stop down the lens to f/8-f/11 or thereabouts. i also find the long end of that range useful for people shots -- both the nikon and tokina 12-24 are sharpest from 18-24--whereas on an 11-16, the longest focal length is still a bit wide for people pics most of the time, unless you're doing a wide group shot.

so i guess the bottom line is how you prioritize range, max. aperture, and body compatibility. i'm sure cost factors in there somewhere too. and on that note, you don't lose much if anything by going with the tokina 12-24 over the nikon, unless you have a d40 or d60, in which case you wont be able to AF. but in terms of image quality, they're practically the same lens.

Edmond...I was just talking today with my buddy who got the 10 by 20...I wont say he hates it now but he does not like it...The distortion kills the lens is what he's told me...I remember when he first got it and how jazzed he was about it...Not so much now...

I loved the Sigma 10-20mm but I loved the Nikon 10.5mm DX better, and sold the Sigma. The slow aperture at 20mm, f5.6, did not impress me. I am interested in the new Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 and will be interested to see reviews when it becomes available.

I should add that the optical performance of the Sigma 10-20mm is outstanding and every bit as good as the Tokina 12-24mm in my experience.

hmm, i'm still jazzed on the 12-24. i've started using it more for events where i know there will be large groups of people, like this cannabis expo yesterday in sf...

Could you get the same coverage of content with a fisheye 10.5, defished using the hemi plugin for CS3 or something? Is the 10.5 sharp too?

ps dave, don't know if i would agree... the tokina kinda smokes the sigma at the long end. the sigma was optimized to shoot best at 10mm, but i think the tokina is better from 15mm on out. the problem is there's a lot of distortion at 10mm. not that i havent seen good shots with the sigma from people who know what they're doing.but i think the overall consensus is the tokina has more consistent and therefore better IQ.

phoenix: yes, you can defish the 10.5 in capture NX. the 10.5 is one of nikon's sharpest lenses.