7 out of 10 points and not recommendedSmall, sturdy, good walk around lensNot very sharp on a digital, slight distortion
When I had my F100, I wanted a true wide angle lens that goes beyond my 28-70. This little thing worked well on my film camera, but items on the side borders will be distorted, especially if you shoot people up close. This is truly more suited for landscape.reviewed January 5th, 2007 (purchased for $250)
I was very disappointed to see its performance on my D200 and D70. The image quality seems to suffer from softness, and I have not been able to get many good shots . While this is a light and small lens, it is inflexible on a digital because the 17-70 kit lens arguably performs better and is much wider. I am planning to sell my 24mm soon to fund another lens. I also have a Tokina 12-24 f4 and it is much better!
0 out of 10 points and recommendedSharp, good contrast, fast AF, great build!Slightly heavy, need a 77mm thin filter for protection
This is a digital only lens. The gold ring indicate it's a Tokina pro quality lens. Considering the price compared to the Nikon 12-24, this is a bargain. Having searched around for people's reviews of the Nikon, Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron ultra-wide zoom lens, I bought the Tokina because it fits my budget and does what I need it to do.reviewed January 5th, 2007
Pro: This is a very sharp lens across 12-24. Images have very good contrast and IQ right out of the camera and I have been very happy using it. During my last vacation, I used it extensively for landscape and group shots. Take care not to tilt it up or down or you will add more distortion. With a minimum focusing range of 0.30m, it lets you be very flexible and also let you take some very funny shots of people up close and wide. This is (I believe) a metal covering so it very sturdy and well built but somewhat heavy.
One thing to watch out for is not to shoot into bright lights or the sun. I always have my hood on and try to compose away from lights to avoid flaring.
Con: It is heavier than the d70 17-70 kit lens at weighing 570g. You will need the large 77mm thin filter. I use the Kenko version. Vignetting has not been a major problem
9 out of 10 points and recommendedlow-light, sharp, constrasty, good portrait lens on a digitalsoft wide open
This is my favorite lens. On a digital, it turns into a 75 and no longer is a good walk-around lens. However, it is an excellent low-light performer. I plan to mainly use this for the first two months when my daughter is born. The bokeh is nice too. I usually stop it down to f/2.8 for better sharpness.reviewed January 6th, 2007 (purchased for $250)
I wish the minimum focus was shorter but I suppose I could get the 60mm micro too. When I am shooting portraits, I usually carry this 50mm and my 85mm 1.8.
9 out of 10 points and recommendedsharp!, good constrastSLOW and loud AF, AF hunts
I use this lens more for its macro feature than for portraits but when I use it for portraits, it is so sharp that you can see pores on skins.reviewed January 6th, 2007 (purchased for $400)
I'm glad I bought this lens instead of the Nikon version even though I do not use this often. It takes excellent sharp and contrast photos of close-up subjects. It is much cheaper than the Nikon version, although the new VR version looks nice too. However, when you are using macro mode, you should be using a tripod anyway.
My complaint is the AF is very slow, loud, and hunts. Sometimes it's better to just use manual focus or continuous focus if the subject is moving around.