That was my thought too... A limitation on the body itself?

I'm confused... I thought you do not recommend DX lenses?

Like that might as well get the newer 10-24 DX lens. Closer MFD.

I was thinking if center sharp, side not sharp it could be body limitation actually.

Prime open wide open, the center is always the sharpest should be easier for the body to focus using center compared to corner AF points where the image won't be so sharp. Since if you're using a f/1.4 lens, it focuses at f/1.4 then step down when you shoot (if you step down la).

Forget about it. Get 11-16 better if between 12-24 tokina

He mentioned that 2 of course I tell which to get la
I of course will recommend FX lens but he didn't ask for that. Why bother ? You should read from beginning instead of jumping in half way and taking that as a conclusion

This doesn't happen on my 35/2
Probably because f/2 ?
But 50/1.4 doesn't have that problems too

This post has been edited by KTCY: Mar 1 2011, 11:38 AM

I couldn't get rid the imagination of FF + f/1.4 !!!
I want go back miri use your D3 and shoot her LOL !



FEELS GOOD MANG

now 11-16? last time u compare 11-16 tokina with 12-24 nikkor ya?
hahaha.. I asked about comparison between 11-16 tokina and 12-24 tokina

My apologies. You don't have to get jumpy !

But back to my question, would the Nikkor 10-24 be a better solution?

Just wondering, cause it happened to my 85mm f/1.4.

When you focus, the hit rate not as good as compared to using center AF. Sometimes use center AF recompose even sharper LOL.

Oh ya. I thought Nikkor 12-24.
Tokina 12-24 quite soft to my liking.

Not jumpy.
10-24 distortion a little complex. Prefer 11-16
If nikkor, 12-24 DX the best

---

Added on March 1, 2011, 11:45 amSend together with you VRII for calibration ? AFAIK, it won't be. Tested the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 before on my D90, it works accurately.


This post has been edited by KTCY: Mar 1 2011, 11:45 AM

I would said 1224 is more worthy! even nikkor lose to it by miles...

1116 i will buy if i were you

go try it by your self...

not forget to try out sigma 1020 !

sigma 10-20 ugly distortion !
Nikkor 12-24 lose to Tokina 12-24 ? Are you sure on this ?

Ohh.. Okay then I think I should upgrade body first before actually investing on lens more. Thanks!

---

Added on March 1, 2011, 11:50 am12-24 more worthy but you will buy 11-16 if you were me? why?
isn't that statement seems opposing each other?
I tried sigma 10-20. doesn't really like it.
11-16 doesn't AF with my body
12-24 do AF with my body.

or upgrade my body and buy 11-16?

This post has been edited by aldosoesilo: Mar 1 2011, 11:50 AM

I'd say investing more on lens than body. lens rarely depreciate where body's price will depreciate as time goes

hehehe...
photography is the expensive hobby...

yeah.. I do understand that. but again with this body I can't get what I want

i also agree that the Tokina 11-16 sits in between the Nikon 10-24 & 12-24 ...

the Tokina is considered a value lens for its selling price ...

the main draw back is no built in focus mechanism ...

hahaha...
i also thought just like u..

i got no info regarding sigma one. Just that 10, maybe suit his taste.

Nope, as he said he dun wan burn his bank account. In this case 1224 may come worthy. From my point of view, if 35mm able to satisfied you, with that kind of price i doubt the IQ you will ever make you regret it.

But if you look for more 1116 is your choice.

As for me, nikkor 1224 looks more complex than 1116. Just my 2 cents.

so..its mean...
116 does not hv motor but 12-24 hv motor?

D3100 more better than D90 in term of IQ and noise control !

I'd say the list goes like this.
From worst to best

DX
Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6
Sigma 10-20 f/3.5
Tokina 12-24
Sigma 8-16
Nikkor 10-24 / Tamron 10-24
Tokina 11-16
Nikkor 12-24

IQ...image quality affect by what? lens quality? focal range??

by the way you guys seems really free...no need work ar?