Photographers, videographers, drone pilots—you’ve got enough equipment to lug around. DJI Copilot is here to ease the load and usher you into the world of BOSS—that’s Backup On-Set Solutions. With your DJI Copilot BOSS drive, you’ll spend more time shooting and adventuring, and less time stuck behind a computer. The DJI Copilot takes in-field backup into the world of computer-free convenience with direct ingestion, mobile file management, and mobile device charging capability.
More great Ilford Tutorials
Receive a £1 voucher every time you review a product!
Customer ratings for Nikon 10-24mm F3.5-4G AF-S Lens
Number of ratings: 1
Average rating: 5
A fabulous lens for most occasions. from Jasdip Sagu on 30/01/2018
For quite a while I was looking for an ultra wide lens for my Nikon D7100 which was both robust, light and had some great optics. When it came to optics I wanted a lens which produced sharp images and could easily control ghosting and flare.
To cut a long story short I found the lens choice was ultimately down to the Nikon 10-24mm AF-S Nikkor f/3.5-4.5G DX ED) and the Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX II 11-16mm f/2.8.
There is no doubt having handled both lenses (I purchased mine from a high street store) the Nikon stands out as feeling a lot lighter and maybe not as robustly built as the Tokina. If I was to drop both lenses I’d probably be more confident in seeing the Tokina coming back to life again than the Nikon. I found this surprising given you’d think Nikon would strive to make their own lenses stand out against their competitors. With this said, the Tokina weighed about 3 oz more than the Nikon which itself isn’t the lightest lens to carry around all day.
Even though I try my best to take care of my equipment, I know I can be quite clumsy at times and I’m sure both these lenses would take a couple of knocks during one of my many travels, although The Nikon is definitely more prone to being damaged if knocked from the front.
Operation wise they both appeared to be very smooth. One thing I did notice was the Tokina has a different focus ring than those used on my Nikon 35/1.8G lens On the Tokina the ring is pulled and pushed to switch from AF to MF. Not a big deal given I rarely use the lens in MF mode, but even so the Tokina uses a system I’m not familiar with.
I’m not someone who takes more than a single lens with me when travelling. As such it was important to choose a lens which wasn’t going to keep me tied to a range which was too wide. Given photography through ultra wide lenses is a completely different kettle of fish compared to my usual 35mm prime lens, I didn’t want to be stuck with a lens which didn’t allow me to at least go back to a focal length which was more forgiving. After all, I’m unlikely to see everything suitable to be shot at the widest angle of this lens. As such the range of the Nikon 10-24 was in my opinion better suited for me than the Tokina 11-16 regardless of which direction I wanted to go.
Even if I was prepared to take two lenses on my trips I’m more of a fair weather photographer and therefore unlikely to take many pictures unless there are clear blue skies. What worried me about the Tokina is its unlikely to cope as well as the Nikon in full sunlight given it is said to suffer from flare of the front element. My view is Nikon is years ahead of Tokina in this department and its Super Integrated Coating is said to do a much better job of eliminating ghosting and flare.
I was also made aware of the Tokina lacking sharpness even in the central region when used wide open. Although slightly worse than the Nikon it’s not something many people would notice unless they used third party software to zoom into their pictures. Even so it was something which added another tick to which lens was best for me even though it could be corrected if you went down a stop or two. When it came to distortion and barrelling I thought they were equal given they both had a certain amount of this.
Just to say the Tamron 10-24mm was not an option lens for me Reviews I’ve read state this lens is not even in the same league when it comes to sharpness compared to the Nikon. The AF is also said to be far from being silent unlike the other lenses I saw.
After a hectic month of using the new Nikkor lens I often asked myself if I would I have actually noticed the difference between the two lenses. The answer is a definite yes, and this is for two reasons. The main focal length of the Nikon might only be a single digit wider, but this is equivalent to 10 degrees (four inches at arms length) . This may not be much to many people, but this would have made a huge difference to some of the photos I have taken. Secondly, I often pulled the lens back to a far more forgiving focal length (which the Tokina lens lacks) and was pleased I didn’t need to change the lens to achieve this. Of course there were countless occasions when I needed to open up the lens to its full potential to get the ultimate shot. . . and in a few instances crave for even a wider lens!
The Super Integrated Coating on the Nikkor lens was well capable of controlling any glare from the sun, to the point where I was confident in having the sun visible in the lens knowing it would not have an impact on the shot. Of the first 500 shots, only one had minor lens flare in it. That to me alone was well worth a few hundred pounds extra.
Ok, the Nikkor might not be as robust than the Tokina, but then in its defence, it’s lighter in weight to carry around. Given my photography equipment is insured, I’m not too worried about something happening to it.