Sharp enough in the center, even wide open! Gets adequate in the sides and corners after some stopping down.

Has a tendency to miss focus badly on all distances om my D3200. Should be sharper in the sides and corners, which is the whole point of buying a lens that show more things out there! So all of Nikons wide-zooms are not worth the money. (save for the 14-24/2.8) The asking price is way too high for the average image quality you get. Better to take two images with the 18-55mm, and you have the whole scene in better quality!

well build, very useful if you love outdoor and landscape photography

price

so nice but so hard to use

is one of the lens either you love it or hate it

I can see why

If I have to paid CAD 1000 for it I won't buy it

I got a good deal on ebay

nikon need to drop the price if they want this lens to be more popular
(they have the replacement already)

Similar Products Used:

18-55

Soft!

I do not own this lens but I have used it many times. Tested it against my Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8. I found that the lens is extremely soft.

Fast focusing with AF-S, good size and weight.

A little pricey for an F/4. Lens hood design seems to be wider than nessesary.

I love wide angle lens and this lens gives me the room I need when working close to subject and to see the big picture. At F/4 it's has enough light to focus in most low light situations and still keep a nice depth of field. Rarely do I need to use manual focus, and in close the lens is still sharp.

distortion is pretty well managed, does not vignet with nikon 77mm polarizer. af-s is very handy. filter ring compatibility with nikon "pro" lenses.

maybe it is a quality control issue, but this is not a lens worth 940.00 to me. the DOF is too shallow and the sharpness is worse than most of my cheaper glass. there arent many choices for the 12-18mm range right now, maybe the tokina?

When it comes to having a wide angle zoom for dx cameras there are not a lot of choices below 18mm. I was not satisfied with the wide end performance of the 24-85mm or the 18-70mm so I tried this. the 12-24mm is a lot better corrected but I dont think it is much sharper than either of those lenses at those focal lengths, which to me isnt saying much for this lens.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

18-70mm. 24-85mm

Contrast lack of distortion (to some) fun

Focusing faux pas?

I finally broke down and got one of these lenses. I must admit I have a soft spot for extreme wide angles, the more distorted the better.. Viva Dali!! To this end I found the 12-24 somewhat dissappointing as it resists the urge to bend the corners unless you are so close to the subject that it can't help it. Contrast is excellent.. 'nuff said there. I have found that my lens tends to focus 4-5 ft. behind the subject when in a contrasty light. This may be more a function of the camera's poor (CAM900) fosusing ability than a fault of the lens. The one thing can be said about this lens is that it is FUN. If it can't re-kindle that flush you first had looking through the veiwfinder at the world that lives through the lens then give it up and shoot licence pictures for the DMV. The 12-24 all summed up is hoot to use. If you're going to have one lens in your bag get a 18-70 AF-S (not evryone can afford the 17-55 AF-S) If you're going to have two lenses in your bag make sure that the 12-24 is the second one. You won't be dissapointed.

Customer Service

Draconian.. If the lens isn't purchased from a Candian certified dealer then no warranty (duh), no service, no parts. God help you if your Nikon breaks in Canada whle on holiday and you didn't buy it in Canada.

Similar Products Used:

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED Tokina 19-35

Sharp and fast. Ultra-wide solution for digital SLR's.

Too much distortion for people shooting. Zoom and focus ring switched. Slightly slow f/4 aperture.

This lens is meant to replace the 17-35 on a digital SLR. However, while the 17-35 could be used to photograph people, I do not recommend that be done with the 12-24, as distortion is too great. If you are a landscape photographer, this is the lens for you, but photojournalists or portrait photographers should check out the 17-55 dx first.

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 17-55mm dx af-s Nikon 17-35mm af-d Nikon 20mm af-d

Light, compact; sharp, and with a very good contrast; neutral color rendition. Construction is solid.

It gives soft images and a little CA at f4; some barrel distortion at 12 mm. It's a DX & G! Price is higher than Sigma (that is a full-frame lens).

This lens replaced a Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM in my gear. Now my gear is lighter! Weight is important but it's not the only reason that push me to change. Sigma is too soft and almost unusable at full aperture, even if it has a great distortion correction on all over the focal range. Nikon 12-24 has a stunning sharpness and contrast and gives neutral colors; Sigma had a warm cast and a more soft contrast. I lose the opportunity to use this zoom on my 35 mm camera, but it's not a problem: I really never had this need: 20 mm on 35 mm gives a very wide angle... Note: price is in Euro.

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 12-24 mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM

Colors, contrast, saturation, sharpness, AF-Speed, weight, size.

a very very little CA at 12mm/f4 in OOF-Areas under strong contrasts. DX-design (but useable as 18-24 on film) Distoration (can be easily corrected loosing a few pixels)

very good colors, contrast and saturation. Even the (overrated) sharpness is very good from f/4 on (wide open). It has a fast and good AF (AF-S). A very little CA is visible at 12mm f/4 at very contrastary situations in the OOF-Areas but kept under well control. Flares and Ghosting are (almost) no problem and if so, very well controlled. Weight and size make it a good walkaround as well. Filters are "pro size 77mm", though a little expensive, but I really want filters to protect my expensive glass. I had the 20 2.8 during film days and the 12-24DX is a very good (better) replacement) First I tried the way cheaper Sigma 12-24, but did not like colors and contrast, neither saturation and the Sigma needed to be stopped down twice making it a tripod crier. Distortion can be an issue with architecture, but the power of modern pp makes this a no-brainer. On one side I wish it would be f/2.8, on the other hand I fear this would make it way more expensive and way more heavy and big (looking at the 17-35 and 17-55DX). With 1000 Eur it is a bit expensive compared to Sigma, but all my Nikkors lasted very very long and gave me what I wanted over many years.

Customer Service

not needed with this lens, all other experiences with Nikonservice have been good (ie cleaning, inspection after 15 years)

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 20mm f/2.8 (sold) Sigma 15-30 (sold) Sigma 12-24 (sold)

- True wide angle for Nikon digital SLR - Sharp - Constant aperture

- Light chromatic abberation at 12 mm (usually not visible) - Price

An absolute essential piece of your kit, if you use a Nikon digital SLR with a crop factor of 1.5. The lens is sharp from corner to corner, even at wide apertures. The loss of one stop over a f/2.8 lens is not a big deal for a wide angle lens (hand held at 1/20 is possible). Distortion at 12 and 24 mm is very small. At 12 mm the lens has a little bit of chromatic abberation,but this is only visible in extreme contrasty situations. As this is not a pro lens, I would like to see the price of this lens closer to $750. My sample gallery: www.millhouse.nl/nikon12-24dx.html

Customer Service

Not used for this lens, but generally very good (Inca)

Similar Products Used:

Nikon AFS80-200, Nikon 24-120VR, Nikon 28-200, Tamron 90SP macro