Nikon 17-55 vs Tokina 12-24.

The Nikon 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX is a fine lens. I have owned one since 2005 and have use two additional samples besides mine. While it is a good lens, I can't imagine it is much better than any Tokina 12-24mm lens.

I suggest that you should consider whether you need the 17-55mm (wide to short tele) range or the 12-24 super wide range. Your purchase should be based on the angle of view you need. After you decide you want a mid zoom or a wide zoom, then consider which lens in that range is for you. Comparing the Nikon 17-55 DX to Tokina's 12-24 is mixing apples and oranges.

Shun,
You've made several good recommendations in the past. I do some portrate photograpy with Nikon 50mm 1.4 prime (incredable detail). I had purcashed the Tokina because I wanted to photograph interior spaces. However, I couldn't zoom in as much as I'd like to pick up details. It seemed that the Nikon provided a little more flexability. The Nikon appears to have better glass and better fstop than the Tokina given low light. I do use a tripod though.

An ultra-wide lens is meant to shoot typically in situations where other lenses are not wide enough (or when you want the visual effect that ultra-wides offer). If you need to zoom in more than 24mm and can't move in closer to your subject, you probably have the wrong lens mounted on your camera. You always want to use the 'right' lens for the shooting situation. For example, the 17-55mm is an excellent lens, but would be the wrong lens if 17mm was not wide enough to get all the subject matter in your viewfinder based on your shooting environment.

Keep in mind that rather than zooming in, you have the option of moving your camera closer to your subject to frame correctly or changing lenses.

Because you are using a tripod, the faster aperture of the Nikon lens should have little advantage over your Tokina when shooting stationery subject matter.

Is the Nikon that much better than the Tokina lens?

Recently, mounted a Nikon 17-55 2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX on my D300 and …jaw dropped.

I agree with Shun's point about the obvious difference in focal lengths. Comparing your Tokina to the 12-24 f/4 DX Nikkor (there's one on my D200 as I write) would be comparing apples to apples. Outside of that, there's a reason Tokinas are less expensive than equivalent Nikkor lenses, particularly pro lenses like the 17-55/2.8 DX. When used at the same focal length and under similar conditions as you shoot with your Tokina, if you saw a remarkable (jaw-dropping) difference in image quality , then you've really answered your own question. The only complaint (if it is one) that I've ever heard about the 17-55/2.8 is the weight.

Because you are using a tripod, the faster aperture of the Nikon lens should have little advantage over your Tokina when shooting stationery subject matter.

I can think of two advantages:

1. Shallower DoF is available if wanted/needed.
2. All else being equal, an f/2.8 lens will likely be sharper at f/4 than an f/4 lens shot wide open - it might matter until f/8 or thereabout.

The Tokina 12-24 is excellent short end to a bit more than the middle, but very poor at the long end.

Is the Nikon that much better than the Tokina lens?

The 17-55 is just a brilliant lens, and while the two you have are not really comparable, I would say if you want to compare the broad performance of these two lenses yes, the Nikon is that much better because it has excellent performance throughout its whole focal range.

I have the Nikon 12-24 (which is very good at the long end) and I would very much like to have the 17-55; I don't see one as a replacement for the other. Unfortunately, I also have the Nikon 18-70 which I normally shoot at f/5.6 or above. It performs so well that I really can't justify the expense of the 17-55 for the kind of shooting I do.

But if I ever find a real deal on one... :)

yes, an apple is indeed much more delicious than an orange... if I'm in the mood for an apple...

Seriously, if you don't need wider than 17mm, the choice is clear. If you do need wider, perhaps you need both.

Thanks folks for the quick advise. I like the "both" response. Tokina stays in the bag and Amazon's on its way with a Nikon 17-55. I do like the Tokina ProII glass, 12mm works well in small rooms for those tight shots.
...Regards, dn

i just shot 500+ frames with the tokina this weekend.

rarely shot above 5.6, most shots were at f/8. i would say the tokina is n-i-c-e for wide shots and not so good at 2.8, LOL.