Looking to buy a new lens

[KenYork]

This is what I'm looking at:

Tokina AT-X 124 AF PRO DX AF 12-24mm f/4

Specifications

35mm Focal Length Equivalent: 19-38mm
Maximum Aperture: F/4
Minimum Aperture: F/22
Optical Construction: 13 Elements / 11Groups
Coatings: Multi-layer Coatings
Zooming System: Rotary-type
Minimum Focus Distance: 11.8 in. (30cm)
Macro Ratio: 1:8
Number of Diaphragm Blades: 9
Filter Size: 77mm
Dimensions:
3.3 in. (84mm) X 3.5 in. (89.5mm)
Weight:
20.1 oz. (570g)

The reviews i've found seem good, any comments?

[RX9]

are you using Canon or Nikkon? its really good lens vs price wise. little too soft before f10, craftmanship is nice (solid). if you are using canon and not planning to upgrade to FF, get this or Sigma 10-20 (better than Tokina at this price range, IMO). if you are planning to upgrade to FF, get sigma 12-24, or 17-40L or 16-35L. for nikkon....sigma 12-24 is better.
ps:wide angle is very hard to handle, you better think about this then buy one.

[matt9]

Ugh Tokina :/

[KenYork]

Sorry. I should have mentioned I use a Canon. I guess the 1.6stops don't make much of a difference, else jump to the 16-35L. I just don't think I'll go FF.

For handling the wide angle, I'll learn.

[RX9]

Sorry. I should have mentioned I use a Canon. I guess the 1.6stops don't make much of a difference, else jump to the 16-35L. I just don't think I'll go FF.

For handling the wide angle, I'll learn.

in this case, get it. but i still strongly recommand you to try out sigma 10-20, its really nice lens as well, both sharpness and color are much better than Tokinas.
i am using 1DM3+EF 28-300L at most of time, 28x1.3 has already been not easy to handle.

[JMAK74]

The Sigma 10-20 is good value for the money spent and as RX9 said - colours are good and sharpness is good.

[KenYork]

Thanks for the info.. I think i'll try them out and see which copy is best(Sigma or Tokina).

[metrogrey]

try Canon's own 10-22mm. It's not an L lens but it looks like Ken Rockwell loves it.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

[JMAK74]

It's nice and I'm not saying you're (or Ken Rockwell) is outright wrong, but I get more bang for the buck with the Sigma 10-20 (I have it)

Based on Henry's Pricing (b/f tax):
Canon 10-22 (f3.5-4.5) - $850 (lens)+$70 (Canon Lens Hood) = $920
Sigma 10-20 (f4.5-5.6) - $620 (comes with a Sigma lens hood)
I'm ahead $300 going the Sigma route which will give me basically the same result, which I can then spend on other glass/etc.

Just my $0.02 in a $1,000,000.00 world.

[b3GS]

from most tests/reviews I've read on those two lenses, they do both give the same results. Why not save the extra $300 as JMAK74 said

also.. I've seen the sigma at Pac Mall for $549

[Spyder01]

KenYork, I have also been checking out this lens. From what I've seen, this Tokina version is sharper than the Sigma. But then again, the Sigma is 2mm wider. People tend to compare this Tokina is kind of in between the Sigma and the Canon/Nikkor versions in terms of image quality.

But I've been told to wait till mid April to check this Tokina for some reason. I didn't ask why, do you know if there is a new version?

At the moment though, I am still leaning towards the sigma because it is better in low light than the Tokina. I think each have their own advantage and disadvantage. It depends on what you shoot.

[KenYork]

Well also the Tokina is supposedly useable full frame.

[MSMitch]

I've got the Sigma 10-20 for my Canon - lI ove it - haven't compared it side by side with the Tokina - but heard the Sig had (maybe) better elements. The Canon is great too, I didn't appreciate a huge difference for my uses, but $$$, I couldn't justify the extra cash personally. Now that the weather is nice, will have to put the lens to good use - not the best indoor lens of course!

[JMAK74]

I've got the Sigma 10-20 for my Canon - lI ove it - haven't compared it side by side with the Tokina - but heard the Sig had (maybe) better elements. The Canon is great too, I didn't appreciate a huge difference for my uses, but $$$, I couldn't justify the extra cash personally. Now that the weather is nice, will have to put the lens to good use - not the best indoor lens of course!

A wide angle is great for interior shots of buildings/cars/etc.

[MSMitch]

A wide angle is great for interior shots of buildings/cars/etc.

You are absolutely right! In my haste I left out three important things limiting my indoor use (for "people" pics I should have specified) - my German shepherd and my two kids (1 and 3 years old)

[RX9]

A wide angle is great for interior shots of buildings/cars/etc.

you are wrong. the best for these shoots is this one.

[RX9]

Well also the Tokina is supposedly useable full frame.

you can mount it on, but you cant use it shorter than 15mm, 15-24 is fine, all you get from 12-15 is bad cut of on the photos (you only get a round area in the centre <== clear, others all black out), but remember it is not a FF lens, you wont get all the goodies on a FF camera such like sharpness, high enough detail.....

[JMAK74]

you are wrong. the best for these shoots is this one.

I said great, not best, which your example is the best to take interirors/buildings/structures/etc as you can adjust for distorations common place with those subjects, however for a hobbyist (even serious ones IMHO) that sort of lens is a bit pricey. I have that on my "things I probably really don't need but if I win the lottery" list

[Xerox]

you are wrong. the best for these shoots is this one.

That's actually the first thing that came to mind when I read JMAK's comment HOWEVER I still agree with JMAK. TS is best for architectural shots but for a car? I guess it all depends on the effect you're going for. But for most all other shots, I would just use other lenses (ie. wide, lens baby, post process to mimic TS miniature effect - see my attempt: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wifi_jo...7594404126220/). I don't think I would use it to shoot a car. And like JMAK, TS is on my list to buy if I win the lottery.