pv3977 Loc: San Diego

I take real estates photo for my wife business from time to time. I use my old D7100 with Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8. This set up give my coverage for the outside photos plus additional reach for detail close up of amenities and such for the interior. Tokina lenses are built like a tank and photos are as sharp as 14-24mm Nikon which is a legend on its own.

saxman71 Loc: Wenatchee, WA

It seems you have made your decision so this post will support it. I recently had a wide angle GAS attack and purchased the Tamron 15x30mm, f/2.8. The price was right and the reviews were good. However, I have never used the Nikon lens so cannot compare. I've had the Tamron for about a month and the early returns are good. It may be most useful to post of few images for you to view. The first two are inside an old church in Seattle. The second church image is cropped a bit and was selected the Seattle Times "Readers Lens Photo Of The Week" a couple weeks ago. The third image is at the federal Courthouse in downtown Seattle. The fourth was taken at the Pike Place Market looking south. Have fun with your new lens. Saxman

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Ji Li

Thanks. That shows very clear pictures. Very nice!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Nikon does not make a 12-24mm f/2.8 FX lens.

They DO make a 12-24mm f/4 Nikkor DX lens, which wouldn't be a good choice for use on your camera (which would self-crop when a DX lens is mounted, leaving you with equiv. of 18-36mm angle of view and under 10MP size images).

Nikon DOES make a 14-24mm f/2.8G FX lens... very nice, but pricey. Also it has a protruding, convex front element that precludes using standard filters on it. There are special filter holders and oversize filters available, but they also cost quite a bit and are rather bulky.

Sigma makes a 12-24mm f/4 "Art" lens which seems pretty darned good and is full frame capable. It's $1600 and also has a convex front element that prevents using standard filters, requires special holder, etc.

Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 costs $1100 and also has convex front element and the same issue with filters.

Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 FX for $549 is another lens you might want to consider. (Also has convex front element.)

Do you really need f/2.8 on an ultrawide? Unless you want it for a little bit brighter viewfinder shooting at night or photojournalism or other rather specialized purposes, you might never need it. More often than not, with wide angle lenses we are stopping them down for greater depth of field. f/4 lenses can sometimes be sharper edge to edge, as well as smaller, lighter and less expensive. If open to an f/4 lens, Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4G for $1100 has VR and can use standard 77mm filters. There's also Tokina AT-X 17-35m f/4 for $400 which uses standard 82mm filters. There are several other 17-35mm f/2.8s, too.

Ji Li

Thanks Alan... I corrected myself in a update post that I was interested in the Nikon 14-24 (not 12-24). That was a typo on my part.
Thanks for your summary and feedback.

ValliPride Loc: Lost in Florida

I was also thinking of the F4 just for the use of filters, I shoot Lightning and normally have my F stop at about F16 for 3 seconds. Thanks for your thoughts. Was torn between the 12-24 2.8 Nikon on my D850. ???

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

I don't use Nikon although I do know there is a big increase in viewing area when you go from 15mm down to 12mm. As long as it is rectilinear, (none or almost no "warping"), you should be set to go with the Nikon 12-24.

frankie c Loc: Lake Havasu CIty, AZ

You did say full frame.... Isn't the Nikkor 12-24 F2.8 a DX lens? If you use a DX lens on a full frame DSLR it will clip the image I think. So unless you put the camera into DX mode the lens is not gonna work. FX lenses work fine on a DX camera but DX lenses won't accommodate the full frame sensor. This whole conversation has me confused. I do shoot with a D600 and that's the way it works foe me. I apologize if I am missing something here :(

Ji Li

If I could go back and edit my original post and correct my mistake of 12-24 to 14-24, I would.
I've sent two prior updates on this thread that I was meaning for the 14-24 FX F2.8 lens.
Sorry for the confusion. I wish I could edit my original posting but I can't.

frankie c Loc: Lake Havasu CIty, AZ

OK thanks for replying? Have a great day.

RonM12 Loc: Washington State

I’ve used both the Nikon 14-24 and Tamron 15-30 on my D850. My experience with the Nikon 14-24 was it’s a little soft around the edges. It’s built like s tank and feels good in the hand. Focus and zoom rings are silky smooth. The Tamron 15-30 build quality is also very good. But admittedly to me the Nikon “feels” better. The Tamron gives up 1mm on the low end, but picks up 6mm on the upper end which is handy. It also has vibration reduction. To my eye the Tamron is a little sharper on the edges over the Nikon. I prefer to purchase Nikon lenses when it makes sense and in this case it didn’t. I sold my Nikon and kept the Tamron. It’s nice that it was about $700 less than the Nikon, but for me over the life of the lens, price wasn’t a big factor. Although, with the $ I saved I purchased some other gear.

Jim Bob

Smart man.