Product Description

Ultra wide angle lens 100% dedicated to your Nikon digital Reflex camera. Created to enlarge your horizons, the AF-S DXZoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED is an ultra wide angle lens benefiting from high quality optics.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #19404 in Consumer Electronics
• Brand: Nikon
• Model: 2144
• Released on: 2003-10-13
• Dimensions: 1.07 pounds

Manufacturer's Description
The AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED is the first lens in the new DX Nikkor series. It features ultra-wide angle zoom capability, ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass and Nikon's exclusive built-in SWM (Silent Wave Motor). The lens is targeted at professional and advanced amateur Nikon D-SLR users who demand both the advantages of high optical performance and ultra-wide angle focal range.

Box Contents

Customer Reviews

the only genuine nikon solution for ultrawide on a DX camera
excellent lens and indeed more pro-like than amateur-like in price but also in specs. The new 14-24 promises to be one helluva lens for the full frame D3, but its premium price is no match for the 12-24 wich is DX only. If you're buying a D3 and don't already have the 17-35 2.8, the 14-24 will be the better solution since it also is decent on DX; otherwise, if you don't go pro with a D3, the 12-24 is excellent (and still can be used on the D3 although with obly half of the pixels). You obviously don't have the extreme distorsion you get with the 10.5 DX fiseye.

Premium ultra-wide zoom
Tamron, Tokina and Sigma all make Nikon-fit ultra-wide zooms in the 12-24 range or thereabouts, and all of them are at least a couple of hundred pounds cheaper than the Nikon. For most purposes all three are more than satisfactory. However, for the last drop of quality, this lens outperforms them all.

A little history:
In introducing the D1 digital camera, which set the scene for the new generation of digital SLRs, Nikon opted for an APS-C sized sensor, which is smaller than traditional 35mm film, and gives a 'crop factor' of 1.5, which effectively means that all lenses behave as if they were one and a half times longer than their 35mm equivalent. The reasons for this choice have been extensively debated. However, the practical consequence was that photographers shooting at the extreme long end of their longest lenses were delighted. An 80-200 suddenly became a 120-300, a 300mm became a 450mm. Since lenses become vastly more expensive as they go above 300mm, this was hugely welcome to sports photographers, photojournalists and birdwatchers. The downside was that at the wide angle length, the enormous 17-35 'super-wide' became the equivalent of a 25.5-52.5 -- a useful range for general photography, but nothing special when it comes to wide-angle.

Nikon's solution was to release a new series of 'DX' lenses, of which this 12-24 was the first.

As such, it needed to satisfy two very distinct markets. On the one hand, professional photographers who relied on extreme wide angles wanted a lens with the highest specifications. On the other, amateur photographers wanted a lens which was reasonably affordable, and also practical.

This lens is a compromise to both groups. For the professional, it offers constant aperture -- so that it stays at f4 throughout its range. This contrasts with the Sigma and the Tamron offerings, although the Tokina follows the Nikon lead in offering constant aperture. All of Nikon's professional zoom lenses are constant aperture lenses, and all of its consumer-grade zooms are variable aperture. It also uses ED elements, which, at the time, were reserved only for professional zooms, in order to offer the minimum of chromatic aberration and the maximum in sharpness. It is an AF-S lens, which speeds up autofocus and reduces battery drain, and also allows you to autofocus and then manually adjust.
For the amateur, this lens is reasonably light, compared with the older 17-35, although still heavier than the 18-35 ED f4-5.6.
The compromise, of course, is in the maximum aperture -- at f4 this is a stop slower than other Nikon pro lenses, which are generally f2.8 maximum.

So, the real question is, how good is this lens? The answer is -- really quite good. It does show some distortion at the extremely wide end, and some chromatic aberration. It is considerably better between 18 and 24. Nikon could probably have fixed these problems a little better by increasing the overall size and weight of the lens, but this would have probably doubled the already steep price, and certainly made it less appealing as a carry-around lens for amateurs and professionals alike. The good news is, both lens distortion and chromatic aberration are now easily fixed in software. Photoshop and Nikon's own Capture NX can deal easily and simply with chromatic aberration when the images are shot in RAW, and Panotools, either as a standalone, or as a Photoshop plugin, can quickly and transparently deal with the distortion -- and with the converging verticals which are characteristic of wide angle lenses, if that's what you want. Alternatively, DxO will deal with them in one go, if you prefer that workflow.
More importantly, this lens is detailed and sharp right across the field of view. It is not _as_ sharp as the amazing 70-200 f2.8, but this is unsurprising given the problems organising light from such a wide angle. On the other hand, it is extremely unlikely to suffer from the motion blur which is the bane of long lenses. More to the point, advanced refocusing algorithms (not unsharp masking, which only creates the impression of focus) such as Refocus, FocusFixer and FocusMagic, are capable of interpreting the very slight softness of this lens into pinsharp images.

With all these advances available, is it still worth getting the Nikon rather than one of the independent alternatives? Ultimately, that depends on what you want. Software does a better job of interpreting a lens the better the lens is to begin with. Therefore, no matter how good software gets, you will always get a better final result out of this lens than its current competitors. The difference is slight, but it is noticeable. Ultimately, if you can notice it, it will probably continue to annoy you. On the other hand, you can pay as little as half the price for the admirable Sigma lens.

As for me, I tried various options, and settled with this one.