Thinking of buying a Nikon/Canon body just for 11-16mm or 12-24mm Tokinas.

tibbitts · 11-30-2013, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by rrstuff

Funny enough buying a used budget camera body and a tokina version of either of these lenses, would be cheaper than buying the Pentax version of 12-24mm. I think it is a little bit ridiculous, I am baffled as to why did pentax set the price of 12-24mm this high.

Well, you can't choose a Canon since you won't get the equivalent of an 11 or 12mm with their oddly-undersized sensors.

But modern-era lens availability is undeniably a disadvantage of Pentax cameras.

**Miguel** · 11-30-2013, 12:44 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by miltona580

Isn't the Pentax 12-24 the same lens as the Tokina 12-24, just with Pentax coatings?

Having owned both, glass-wise--excepting the proprietary lens coating (which I think is about the same)--they are the same formula. The body build is different. The Tokina is noticeably heavier and feels sturdier. It also lacks "quick-shift" focus, but I don't think I ever had to use that on an ultra-wide-angle lens.

But yes the cost differences are silly in the used market. That also applies to the Tokina versions of the 35mm macro, and the DA* 50-135mm (and I think the Tokina version is better on a couple counts). Generally Canikon buyers don't have a lot of respect for third-party APS-C-targeted lenses like Pentax buyers do.The exception is the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye which is unique enough to have a market. I took advantage of the market perception when I added Canon and own most of these. The Tokina 16-50mm f2.8 version of the Pentax DA* is considered not-so-good and I have avoided it.

M

rrstuff · 12-01-2013, 02:25 AM

Refurb D3100: $289 (cameta)
New tokina 12-24 II for nikon: $399-$450. (new 12-28 is $550
D3000 body is $189 so it could be even cheaper. For $550 on amazon you could have 11-16 F2.8 with AF-S motor.

New 12-24mm is $800 on amazon and this about the cheapest you can get it on ebay. Used ones run about as low as $550 (correct me if I am wrong).

While D3000 and D3100 are kind of poor cameras, it still seems like unfair pricing on 12-24 DA. Makes me wonder how much would they charge for an 11-16 if it was released as pentax lens.
Other manufacturer's do that too though, seeing how much canon charges for the 24-70 and 70-200 lenses. It's just harder to call them out on it, since they don't share the designs with a third party manufacturer.

I am probably going to get a sigma 10-20 instead of DA12-24 and spend the remainder cash on a better tripod, filters etc.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thinking of Buying a Setup For Vacation For My K-5	BirdDude007	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	24	07-09-2012 03:43 AM
A test of 3 ultrawides - DA 12-24mm, Sigma 12-24mm (FF) and Samyang 14mm (FF)	DanielT74	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	04-19-2011 11:35 PM
Zenitar 16mm or DA 12-24mm on k20d/k200d ?	netuser	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	12-20-2008 04:49 PM
Pentax, Canon or Nikon for a newcomer?	mrrookie	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	12-11-2007 10:47 PM

11-30-2013, 12:19 PM	#16
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,132	Originally posted by rrstuff Funny enough buying a used budget camera body and a tokina version of either of these lenses, would be cheaper than buying the Pentax version of 12-24mm. I think it is a little bit ridiculous, I am baffled as to why did pentax set the price of 12-24mm this high. Well, you can't choose a Canon since you won't get the equivalent of an 11 or 12mm with their oddly-undersized sensors. But modern-era lens availability is undeniably a disadvantage of Pentax cameras.

11-30-2013, 12:44 PM - 1 Like	#17
Miguel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Near Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,746	Originally posted by miltona580 Isn't the Pentax 12-24 the same lens as the Tokina 12-24, just with Pentax coatings? Having owned both, glass-wise--excepting the proprietary lens coating (which I think is about the same)--they are the same formula. The body build is different. The Tokina is noticeably heavier and feels sturdier. It also lacks "quick-shift" focus, but I don't think I ever had to use that on an ultra-wide-angle lens. But yes the cost differences are silly in the used market. That also applies to the Tokina versions of the 35mm macro, and the DA* 50-135mm (and I think the Tokina version is better on a couple counts). Generally Canikon buyers don't have a lot of respect for third-party APS-C-targeted lenses like Pentax buyers do.The exception is the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye which is unique enough to have a market. I took advantage of the market perception when I added Canon and own most of these. The Tokina 16-50mm f2.8 version of the Pentax DA* is considered not-so-good and I have avoided it. M

12-01-2013, 02:25 AM	#18
rrstuff Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pasadena, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125 Original Poster	Refurb D3100: $289 (cameta) New tokina 12-24 II for nikon: $399-$450. (new 12-28 is $550 D3000 body is $189 so it could be even cheaper. For $550 on amazon you could have 11-16 F2.8 with AF-S motor. New 12-24mm is $800 on amazon and this about the cheapest you can get it on ebay. Used ones run about as low as $550 (correct me if I am wrong). While D3000 and D3100 are kind of poor cameras, it still seems like unfair pricing on 12-24 DA. Makes me wonder how much would they charge for an 11-16 if it was released as pentax lens. Other manufacturer's do that too though, seeing how much canon charges for the 24-70 and 70-200 lenses. It's just harder to call them out on it, since they don't share the designs with a third party manufacturer. I am probably going to get a sigma 10-20 instead of DA12-24 and spend the remainder cash on a better tripod, filters etc.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search