[meat01]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I haven't really heard of any 3rd party lenses that work better on nikon than the current nikkor equivalents..... You mention the one you just got..... but nikon doesn't have a F/2.8 equivalent... (best they have is the F/4 which is not comparable). Have any specifics that you would recommend?

Some of the third party lenses are just as good as Nikon's and are less expensive. Some of the them are inferior. Tamron makes a great 90mm macro lens that is just as sharp as Nikon's 105.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I haven't really heard of any 3rd party lenses that work better on nikon than the current nikkor equivalents.

The Tokina works better than the Nikkor equivalent. As I said, it's wider, faster, sharper, it focuses as fast and the build quality is the same. It isn't the same- it's BETTER. See the review for details.

See ya
Steve

P.S. f2.8 is better than f4 if the lens is the same size and weight, and is as sharp or sharper, which the Tokina is.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Tokina works better than the Nikkor equivalent. As I said, it's wider, faster, sharper, it focuses as fast and the build quality is the same. It isn't the same- it's BETTER. See the review for details. See ya Steve P.S. f2.8 is better than f4 if the lens is the same size and weight, and is as sharp or sharper, which the Tokina is.

Nikon has no equivalent. That makes 3 times now.... go ahead for 4, I'll laugh.
F/4 and F/2.8 are not equivalent. I don't know how else to put it.............

 

[GTRacer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nikon has no equivalent. That makes 3 times now.... go ahead for 4, I'll laugh. F/4 and F/2.8 are not equivalent. I don't know how else to put it.............

That point is useless. Both lenses have the same purpose, to capture a wide angle of view. Therefore they target the same audience which in turn makes them equivalent.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTRacer /img/forum/go_quote.gif That point is useless. Both lenses have the same purpose, to capture a wide angle of view. Therefore they target the same audience which in turn makes them equivalent.

No. Wrong.
The Canon 85mm F/1.2 and Canon 85mm F/1.8 capture the same angle of view. From your argument it follows that: 'therefore they target the same audience which in turn makes them equivalent'.

No, they do NOT target the same audience.
F/1.2 is not equivalent to F/1.8

Just as the 70-200mm F/4 is NOT equivalent to the 70-200mm F/2.8.
Just as the wide angle F/2.8 is not equivalent to a wide angle F/4.

In all cases, one is a better version of the other. Comparing the 'better version' to the 'worse version', you know who will win (in theory). Nikon does not have a 'better version' that is equivalent to the 11-16mm. If they did though, I would wager there is a greater than 50% chance that the Nikon would best the Tokina, and thus my argument stands that in general the equivalent nikkor is the better bet. As of yet, I know of no third party lens for nikons that works better than its equivalent nikkor, provided there is an equivalent.

This ain't rocket science........... it's just logic.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, they do NOT target the same audience. F/1.2 is not equivalent to F/1.8

For most people, it is, since most people shoot at sane apertures like f/4 or less to maintain sharpness. The f/1.8 is enough for even low-light shooters; the weight and bulk of the f/1.2 make it nothing more than a collector's piece; I don't know anyone who does real-world shooting with one.

Heck, half the Canon portrait shooters I know use a Nikon 85 f/1.4 on their Canons for the Bokeh.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif For most people, it is, since most people shoot at sane apertures like f/4 or less to maintain sharpness. The f/1.8 is enough for even low-light shooters; the weight and bulk of the f/1.2 make it nothing more than a collector's piece; I don't know anyone who does real-world shooting with one. Heck, half the Canon portrait shooters I know use a Nikon 85 f/1.4 on their Canons for the Bokeh.

Ah, but here's the thing. Even if you do not make full use of the F/1.2's lower f-stops, it should still give better image quality vs. the f/1.8 because it is an all around better lens optically (though it is larger and heavier).

I think that's the reason behind lens maker's limiting the f-stop you can use. If you used a F/4 lens at a wider f-stop than F/4, you're probably not going to get ideal results, and so they limit you to F/4. For the lens maker to say the other lens is good down to F/2.8, they are saying that somehow it is better than the F/4 @ F/2.8 (Even if just size). It is a 'better' lens, for what ever reason, to warrant it able to be used open wider.

That's why comparing the F/2.8 wide to the F/4 wide is, to me, not equivalent. Tokina is saying that lens is somehow good down to F/2.8, while nikon thinks their lens is only good to F/4 or so. So....... the tokina is the 'better' version. If nikon were to make a 'better' version, such as a F/2.8 then that would be a real comparison. Else, it's apples and oranges.

The closest equivalent to the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 I can think of for nikon is their 14-24mm F/2.8, but they are almost entirely different ranges.


The tokina is trying to fill the pro segment for their ultra wide angle. The only ultra wide zoom nikon has right now is a pro-sumer version. If nikon were to release a pro ultra wide zoom comparable to the tonika, my money would be on the nikon being an all around better lens.

I hope that made sense...

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If nikon were to release a pro ultra wide zoom comparable to the tonika, my money would be on the nikon being an all around better lens.

It might very well be better (almost certainly in CA as comapred to Tokina's seemingly lacking coatings). However, a number of Nikon lenses are so expensive that they are very difficult to justify.

Take for instance, that 12-24mm. Most sites give it only a narrow margin of image quality beyond the Tokina or Sigma equivalents. Add the fact that the Nikkor is the least well built of the three (at least IMO, having used all three) and paying double, essentially for a name, becomes a difficult proposition. See also the 17-55 /17-50 debate.

Nikon may not offer an ultra-wide F2.8 DX lens, but given that their most similar offering to the 11-16 is MORE expensive despite being slower and less solidly built, it becomes quite hard not to compare the two.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah, but here's the thing. Even if you do not make full use of the F/1.2's lower f-stops, it should still give better image quality vs. the f/1.8 because it is an all around better lens optically (though it is larger and heavier).

Dragging you back to the point... The Tokina wide zoom is SHARPER in resolution than the Nikkor at f4. It's a tiny bit softer at 2.8 at the edges than the Nikkor at f4, but the Nikkor is two clicks slower. The Tokina is clearly a better lens than the Nikkor. Read the article I linked.

When you argue to win some sort of non-existent contest instead of arguing to make a clear point, you never win.

Iron Dreamer: The Nikkor 12-24 is the lens we're discussing. On Ken Rockwell's site ( Tokina 11-16mm ) he has test images shot with the Tokina compared to the Nikkor, and the Tokina is sharper, both at the edges and in the center.

See ya
Steve

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No. Wrong. The Canon 85mm F/1.2 and Canon 85mm F/1.8 capture the same angle of view. From your argument it follows that: 'therefore they target the same audience which in turn makes them equivalent'. No, they do NOT target the same audience. F/1.2 is not equivalent to F/1.8 This ain't rocket science........... it's just logic.

The 85mms will share functions as portrait lenses and low light lenses.

They don't target the same audience only for the fact that one is MUCH more expensive than the other. Usually only pros will buy the f/1.2 version.

There is some science to all of this. All lenses work differently as they have different construction. Sometimes the faster lenses are optimized for their wide open apertures more. Stopped down, differences are less obvious. I think this is relevent to wideangle lenses which we are discussing. You'll be stopped down a bit in the daytime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif For most people, it is, since most people shoot at sane apertures like f/4 or less to maintain sharpness. The f/1.8 is enough for even low-light shooters; the weight and bulk of the f/1.2 make it nothing more than a collector's piece; I don't know anyone who does real-world shooting with one.

I still think it depends. The best lenses wide open are more than adaquetly sharp already and there's no need to stop down. f/1.8 is ok for some in lowlight. It depends on your situation. The 85 f/1.2 is such a situational lens. I used one as a walk around for sometime last year. It was an interesting experience. I really needed another camera for it though so ended up not keeping it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah, but here's the thing. Even if you do not make full use of the F/1.2's lower f-stops, it should still give better image quality vs. the f/1.8 because it is an all around better lens optically (though it is larger and heavier). I think that's the reason behind lens maker's limiting the f-stop you can use. If you used a F/4 lens at a wider f-stop than F/4, you're probably not going to get ideal results, and so they limit you to F/4.

Maybe < f/2 on this special primes but >f/2, it's a wash. And if you talking wide angle used for mostly scenic stuff @ f/5.6-f/11, it's a wash.

That Tokina lense is special as it's the only f/2.8 one. They had to design it with 2.8 in mind. You can't design something and say it didn't work well at 2.8 so let's make it f4 instead.

Maybe people before didn't make a 2.8 because of price, weight, the technology wasn't good enough, or market wasn't there.

 

[perplex]

But they're not even the equivalent of each other, so you can't compare. That's like saying 70-200 f/2.8 is worse than the 200 f/2.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by perplex /img/forum/go_quote.gif But they're not even the equivalent of each other, so you can't compare. That's like saying 70-200 f/2.8 is worse than the 200 f/2.

Well there is some overlap between the 2 zooms in question. You could compare them in the same ranges.

People compare 70-200 f/2.8 vs 200 f/2 and 200 f/2 + 1.4x TC vs. 300 2.8 and 200 f2 + 2x TC vs. 200-400 f/4. It's always relevant for comparision if the range is useful to you because it's an option.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif When you argue to win some sort of non-existent contest instead of arguing to make a clear point, you never win.

And that, my friend, is why you lost.
^_^

 

[Towert7]

Ah, I think my point is getting lost within the arguments and technicalities.

I agree with Iron_Dreamer. When cost is a factor, a 3rd party lens can be a very nice alternative to the brand lens. Just look at how many people have a Sigma tele macro lens.

If cost is not so much a factor, the brand lens is the better choice compared to a 3rd party lens more times than not (from what I've seen and heard). There are exceptions, and there are cases where it may be one subtle difference, but in general, I'd place my money on the brand lens.

That's my main statement.

It's silly really, because it doesn't have to be this way. However, that's how it seems to be.

 

[bigshot]

I agree with you that "more times than not" the Nikkor is the best choice. And the Nikkor 12-24 is a very good lens. If the Tokina wasn't a better lens in this case, I'd be buying the Nikkor and I'd be satisfied with it. But at the same settings (f stop and fielding) the Tokina is sharper. On top of that it's a full stop faster. It's a better quality lens than Nikkor's equivalent wide zoom, regardless of cost. Why pay more for a brand name lens that isn't as good? It pays to consider third party lenses.

See ya
Steve