[Suhit Gupta]

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

"I don't worry about lens cost, so I'd buy the Nikon again today. If I was still a student I'd get the Tokina and never look back. The Nikon is easily the best lens if you split hairs and have a high resolution camera like a D2X or D200. It had better be for twice the price. The optical differences between the Nikon and the others are subtle. These differences won't be seen by most people. You'll make better pictures by spending the extra money on a photo trip instead of the Nikon lens. People read me because I'm direct. The weird thing about this review is the three other lenses can be pretty close. I would get the Tokina myself. If you have a special application the Tamron or Sigma might be a better choice than the Tokina. Read on if you have a specific need for weight or angle of view."



This is an issue we discussed on DMT almost a year ago, i.e. buying non-Nikon (or non-Canon in the original thread) lenses for a Nikon camera. This article seems to suggest that if you are going to be printing your photographs on relatively small paper, you will not really notice the difference. The difference is apparent only with 3 foot prints with a D200 (not even a D50 or D70). And if cost is an issue, it looks like Tokina wins out easily. Has anyone bought a Tokina lens before?

[Suhit Gupta]

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

"I don't worry about lens cost, so I'd buy the Nikon again today. If I was still a student I'd get the Tokina and never look back. The Nikon is easily the best lens if you split hairs and have a high resolution camera like a D2X or D200. It had better be for twice the price. The optical differences between the Nikon and the others are subtle. These differences won't be seen by most people. You'll make better pictures by spending the extra money on a photo trip instead of the Nikon lens. People read me because I'm direct. The weird thing about this review is the three other lenses can be pretty close. I would get the Tokina myself. If you have a special application the Tamron or Sigma might be a better choice than the Tokina. Read on if you have a specific need for weight or angle of view."



This is an issue we discussed on DMT almost a year ago, i.e. buying non-Nikon (or non-Canon in the original thread) lenses for a Nikon camera. This article seems to suggest that if you are going to be printing your photographs on relatively small paper, you will not really notice the difference. The difference is apparent only with 3 foot prints with a D200 (not even a D50 or D70). And if cost is an issue, it looks like Tokina wins out easily. Has anyone bought a Tokina lens before?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I've used the 28-70/2.6-2.8 a few times before, and bought and sold a 100-300/4. The latest Tokina I own is that 12-24/4, and so far it's not too bad for its price. The focus ring mechanism which debuted on the 28-80 is a joy to use. Certainly the Nikkor is better, but it's not better by twice; more like 10-20%.

BTW, Ken's tests are a bit suspicious to me. The 17-35 is a legendary lens in its own right, yet it performs worse then the cheaper lenses...

[bmhome1]

My 12-24 Tokina is an excellent lens, both mechanically and for the optical performance. At almost 1/2 the price of the Nikon version its a good alternative, even wide open images are very crisp in center, stopped down a bit or above 14mm and its a really great lens.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by bmhome1

My 12-24 Tokina is an excellent lens...

I was checking around in Canada and can't seem to find any place that carries Tokina lenses. Bummer.