augieg27 Loc: Central California

Does anyone have experience with this lens?
Your comments will be appreciated.

Augie

My apologies, I had asked this question before and got great responses.

fergmark Loc: norwalk connecticut

I got the lens to use with a canon 20D years ago. Compared to the tamron lens I was also using, I saw the tokina was noticeably cooler, compared to a warmer tamron. For a relatively inexpensive lens, its well made and fun to use with good sharpness but a pretty high CA in for instance, tree limbs against sky. I replaced the 20D with a 5D and didn't continue using it thereafter. Not especially memorable. I am able to borrow the Nikon 12-24 from a friend, and its in a different class, but you cannot compare the two. DX vs FX.

mflowe Loc: Port Deposit, MD

I had this lens in a Canon mount. Very good, not great, lens. Not the fastest auto focus in the world. Pretty good sharpness. Good build quality. I didn't notice any CA, although I have heard others mention it.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I bought my copy for my Nikon bodies. I could not afford the similar lens made by Nikon. My experience with it was a very pleasant one. It had excellent optical quality.
The colors were not different to those I was getting with my Nikon lenses. Enlargements showed all of the details and sharpness.

Today the prices in the second hand market are very attractive. The lens is exceptionally well made by Tokina. It will serve your purpose for a wide angle zoom...if you do your part when photographing with it.

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Thank you all for your comments, I appreciated
I just got a copy from mpb for $152 in excellent condition.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I still have that lens, but rarely use it now. As stated, chromatic aberration (CA) is it's primary shortcoming. It's most pronounced off center and wide open... improves as you stop it down. Aside from that, it's image quality is quite good.... and CA can be corrected to a large extent in post-processing.

Before I bought the Tokina 12-24 I compared a bunch of ultrawides. It's sharp, well made, decent size and weight (77mm filters), reasonably quick focusing. In my opinion, it was one of the best of the day... It's design and build even reminded me of a premium Canon L-series lens that I was replacing (that Canon lens just wasn't wide enough on APS-C cameras).

Lenses I compared included "the other Tokina" 11-16mm f/2.8... a stop faster and the only f/2.8 at that time... also a wee bit sharper. BUT the 11-16mm is very susceptible to flare, which can often be an issue with ultrawides, AND it has that very narrow range of focal lengths. Otherwise, build quality, function are the same as the 12-24mm, which handles flare better (though not as well as the Canon ultrawides).

Besides the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and 11-16mm f/2.8, other lenses I compared were:
- Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6... good, but not as sharp, pretty severe coma.
- Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5... huge! heavy! good but not as sharp, quite expensive at that time.
- Tamron 11-18mm... the first 3rd party ultrawide and simply awful image quality.
- Tamron 10-24mm... first version, pretty good wide, but soft every where else.
- Canon EF 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5... the best ultrawide by far, sharp, well corrected, very flare resistant, but pricey at that time.

If you are buying for use on Canon, the Tokinas are fine lenses, but both the currently available Canon ultrawides are better. I now use the EF-S 10-22mm. There also is the very compact, light weight and affordable EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM... somewhat plasticky (not as well built as the Canon 10-22mm), but excellent image quality, good overall performance and image stabilized, to boot! All for under $300. The Canon 10-22mm also has come down significantly in price over the years. It has somewhat better build, faster USM focus drive and a bit brighter aperture.... but doesn't have IS and is a little bigger and heavier. It also uses an absurdly big lens hood (I tried not to use mine, but it DOES help images, further reducing any flare in a lens that's already very flare resistant).

If you're a Canon user, all the Tokina, including the more recent 11-20mm and 12-28mm, will autofocus just fine on any Canon APS-C DSLR. They will even fit and work to a limited degree on full frame Canon DSLRs. Of course, there will be some heavy vignetting at the widest focal lengths on full frame. And Tokina lenses are "Nikon-style"... their focus and zoom rings rotate the opposite direction as Canon. I never really noticed this when using the lens. Also, all Tokina lenses use a unique "focus clutch" mechanism to shift from AF to manual focus... the focus ring slides slightly forward or backward to switch AF on or off. Be aware that when the lens is set to AF, you cannot override it. The focus ring is disconnected when set to AF. This is probably done to protect the micro motor focus drive mechanism from damage (same as Canon's micro motor lenses must be switched off before manual focusing). Since I mostly just used AF with my 12-24mm, it wasn't a big deal for me. But it might be an issue for someone who likes to "de-focus, re-focus" or otherwise needs to manually fine tune focus. You simply can't do those things with Tokina lenses. You have to turn off AF (using the focus clutch) before you can manually focus their lenses.

I wondered too if the focus speed of the 12-24mm would be a problem. It simply wasn't on any of the Canon cameras I used (mostly 10D, 30D, 50D, 7D, 7DII). An ultrawide lens only needs to move its focusing elements a very short distance to achieve focus and even a micro motor like the Tokina use can be quite quick. It's probable that the Canon 10-22mm I use now is faster, with its USM ultrasonic focus drive.... But I have a hard time telling any difference. If these were standard or telephoto lenses, the difference in focus speed would be quite apparent. But, because they are ultrawides there's little noticeable lag with the micro motor.

NIKON USERS: IMPORTANT! You need to be aware that the F-mount first version Tokina 12-24mm and 11-16mm DO NOT HAVE A BUILT IN FOCUSING MOTOR. As a result, they will be manual focus only on many Nikon bodies... including all the D3000-series and D5000-series cameras. They will be auto focus capable ONLY on the Nikon models that incorporate an AF drive motor in the camera body itself, such as the D7000-series, D300, D500. (This is also the case with the Tokina AT-X 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens.... I don't know about the new ATX-i 100mm f/2.8 Macro.)

The later "version II" of both 12-24mm and 11-16mm have a built in AF motor in the Nikon mount (as well as all other mounts). In other available mounts, there's almost no difference between version 1 and version II of either lens. Supposedly there were "improved coatings", but good luck seeing any difference! (In addition to Nikon, AFAIK there were Canon and Sony versions... I know there was no Pentax because at the time Tokina was owned by the same company and they instead relabeled these lenses and charged a bunch of extra money for them.)

Tokina is still offering the AT-X 12-28mm f/4 DX lens. They also just re-introduced the 11-16mm f/2.8, now as an ATX-i (I have no idea if or how it differs other than the external cosmetics... the lens formula and spec appear to be identical to the version II). That's kind of odd, since they are also still offering the 11-20mm f/2.8, which also has now been updated as an ATX-i version. Maybe they are doing this because the 11-16mm can be slightly smaller. Tokina also offers a 10-17mm.... but it's a fisheye and basically "uncorrected". It renders pretty heavy distortions, "bending" straight lines.

Today there are other options. Sigma has dropped their 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 entirely and greatly reduced the price of their 10-20mm f/3.5... though it's still one of the largest and heaviest ultrawides. Sigma has also since introduced the widest of the wide, their 8-16mm (interesting, but pretty strong inherent distortions and a hefty price tag). Sigma also has made two or three versions fo 12-24mm lenses... but those are all full frame and pricey, would be a waste of money to just use on an APS-C camera.

Tamron has significantly improved their 10-24mm and it's now image stabilized. (AFAIK, Canon 10-18mm, Nikon 10-20mm are the only other ultrawides with image stabilization.)

Nikon users also have option of a very affordable AF-P 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, around $300 and quite capable. However, be sure that your camera is compatible with AF-P lenses! Nikon has also offered an AF-S 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 and an AF-S 12-24mm f/4.... but they are among the very most expensive lenses of this type from any manufacturer. They're fine too, and are more widely usable on Nikon DX cameras (compared to AF-P lenses), but really aren't all that special.

Pentax and Sony users have some other choices, too. I'm not familiar with them.

augieg27 Loc: Central California

Thank you so much for your great comments and comparison of wide angle lenses. You clearly have a lot of experience with those lenses.
I just bought the Tokina 12-24 mm in excellent condition from mpb for just $152.
I'll post some pics. after I receive it.
Best.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I bought a Tokina 12-28mm and quickly got rid of it .....8-(