Tokina 16-50 review up at Photozone in Nikon mount

[steelski]

Well the Canon EF-S 17-55 IS is here in The Netherlands only 150
more expensive, that is for me not a biggie when we are comparing
lenses around de 700 ~ 900 EUR.

Greetings, Priyantha Bleeker

I will say it again

17 iin 1.6crop is more than 27mm
16 in 1.5 crop is 24mm

 

[Hythloday]

I think you didn't read what I said earlier, I said already that
the ONLY difference is the flare. Nothing else, everything is the
SAME.

I read your last posting and read that the two lenses perform equally. To my understanding EQUAL(LY) means EXACTLY THE SAME. Now you say that I am right: the two lenses don't perform equally, because the Pentax handles flare better than the Tokina.

 

[superbaguy]

I don't know the answer...but I've sure been thinking about it a lot recently...

When testing the 16-45 at a local store I was really turned-off by the CA, but many on this group seem happy with the lens despite it. Then this Tokina 16-50 review comes out and I read that many are dissatisfied with the CA numbers they are seeing for this lens as well, but they are a bit less than the 16-45 at the wide end AND comparable apertures. The 16-50 also appears to have controlled CA ever so slightly better than the 12-24, but not as well as the DA14 (of course now we're talking about a zoom versus a prime).

I played with that DA14 in a store simultaneously with the 21 ltd and the 16-45 and was VERY impressed by the 14 in terms of the overall rendering and lack of CA...had it not been for the soft corners, I would've probably bought it on the spot.

Taking it to the other end of the lens...the 50mm end performs better than they highly regarded FA 50 1.4 prime above 2.8 and equals it at 2.8 in terms of CA.

And then there's that 18-55 kit lens...one of the best of the lot in terms of CA. How is that possible?!?!

So I ask again...how much is too much? What is an acceptable amount of CA? Canon's 16-35 L is much better, but the street price is nearly double. Is that what we're looking for, though? What does a lens maker do to try to control the CA?

On a side note, when I was researching things before this post, I was amazed at the low CA numbers for the 40 and 70 limiteds...WOW!

 

[Hythloday]

17 iin 1.6crop is more than 27mm
16 in 1.5 crop is 24mm

The Canon 17-55mm isn't perfect either. Just read part of the Photozone conclusion:

"The distortion characteristic is quite typical for a zoom lens in this range (pronounced barrel distortions @ 17mm, moderate pincushion distortions @ 55mm) whereas CAs are unusually moderate. Unfortunately vignetting is a weak spot of the lens peaking around 1EV at f/2.8 throughout the range. It's not a show stopper but a little annoying nonetheless. The build quality of the lens is pretty good but in relation to the price tag of the lens Canon should have used a little less plastic"

 

[Priyantha Bleeker]

I read your last posting and read that the two lenses perform
equally. To my understanding EQUAL(LY) means EXACTLY THE SAME. Now
you say that I am right: the two lenses don't perform equally,
because the Pentax handles flare better than the Tokina.

Maybe you're blind to my arguments...

Here is again what I mean:

• Barrel distortion is the (nearly)SAME for both
• Vignetting is virtually the SAME for both
• MTF is the SAME for both(think about the strong AA filter)
• CA is the (nearly)SAME for both

And the ONLY difference is flare resistance like I said. So the optical performance is the same.

--
Greetings, Priyantha Bleeker

 

[Priyantha Bleeker]

The Canon 17-55mm isn't perfect either. Just read part of the
Photozone conclusion:

"The distortion characteristic is quite typical for a zoom lens in
this range (pronounced barrel distortions @ 17mm, moderate
pincushion distortions @ 55mm) whereas CAs are unusually moderate.
Unfortunately vignetting is a weak spot of the lens peaking around
1EV at f/2.8 throughout the range. It's not a show stopper but a
little annoying nonetheless. The build quality of the lens is
pretty good but in relation to the price tag of the lens Canon
should have used a little less plastic"

Of course not None lens is perfect.
--
Greetings, Priyantha Bleeker

 

[interpix]

Any visible CA is to much I think but then again its easy to remove in a converter and the same goes for distortion that could be corrected by PTlens in no time

Im glad to see that the boké looks good and that it seems to be fairly flare resistant.

 

[koala69]

And this is where the Tamron sucks, totally un-usable on a Canon 7-points-AF for instance...

It's also good to remind that the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is actually a 19-47 mm, so if Tokina-Pentax stick to the real FL this lens will have much more range!

Roland Mabo is probably true in claiming that Tokina lenses get the Pentax SMC coatings, their goal is to use their big coating machines at their best, and the Pentax mount is so small at 6-7%market share that this lens will never have the production volume of Canon's and Nikon's 17-55 zooms anyway...

They should have gone further and allow Tokina to use the SDM motor and weather sealing to better compete in this competitive market: the Tamron 17-50, when properly working, is a steal at its price!

Once the motor is developped it's not that expensive to produce: Canon has fit a ring-USM on a 300 dollars lens (28-105) for 15 years now!

The superiority of the pentax DFA 100 macro over its Tokina cousin is not obvious to me, the old 100 macro from Pentax is better says Photozone, which is a different story!

For sure Pentax QC is probably better, but their new 100 macro looks cheaply build, bad exemple to show brand superiority IMHO!

 

[Caat]

but as for 16-50 - it's just expensive zoom for everyday use with
motor and WP, which can't catch stars...

It is the least expensive fast aperture standardzoom from an
original maker, by a heavy margin too. A Canon, Nikon or Sony user
would call it cheap.

Exactly. Its a bargain compared to others.

--
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucsacco/

Well the Canon EF-S 17-55 IS is here in The Netherlands only 150
more expensive, that is for me not a biggie when we are comparing
lenses around de 700 ~ 900 EUR.

And why should Pentax bring out a 'bargain' with LESS performance
than the competitors from other original makers ? Than it is for me
not any more a bargain but simply a lens which isn't it really.

Well the 17-55 isn't weather-sealed. Its also an equivalent 27.2-88 versus the Pentax's 25.6-80 so additional barrel destortion is a likely if not unwanted side effect of this extra wide angle. However, if you look distortion is pretty similar in the focal lengths shared between these two lenses, and certainly not field-relevant.

Resolution is not hugely different, and the slightly soft edges at the wide end are again not unsuprising given that the DA*s wide end is much wider than the Canon's, and had a slight centering defect.

Chromatic aberations may be a concern, but I think it is safe to assume that a lot of people that buy this lens will shoot RAW a lot of the time, and CAs are correctable in RAW. Yes, this is not a perfect performance, but then it isn't priced as such either so buyers aren't getting fleeced here.

We also know nothing about the build quality of the DA* as that is entirely Pentax.

--
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucsacco/

 

[Caat]

oops used wrong mulitplier on the Pentax, should be 24-75!
--
http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucsacco/

 

[Roland Mabo]

They should have gone further and allow Tokina to use the SDM
motor and weather sealing to better compete in this competitive
market

Pentax and Tokina only develops the optics together, they have no deal regarding other technology. If Tokina wants in-body lens motors and weather sealing, they are free to implement their own solutions to this. Pentax does not have to "allow" Tokina anything, Tokina are free to develop their own solutions.

The superiority of the pentax DFA 100 macro over its Tokina cousin
is not obvious to me

The Pentax has lower CA and purple fringing than the Tokina.

the old 100 macro from Pentax is better says
Photozone

No, Photozone claims that the build quality of the older is better because the old version has a full metal body. Regarding image quality they are well much alike, but the new version has higher contrast. The optical blueprint is the same, but the new version uses lens elements that are more telecentric in design.

For sure Pentax QC is probably better, but their new 100 macro
looks cheaply build

The outside is plastic, but it is built with tight tolerancies.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

 

[Hythloday]

Maybe you're blind to my arguments...

I wear glasses

Here is again what I mean:

• Barrel distortion is the (nearly)SAME for both
• Vignetting is virtually the SAME for both
• MTF is the SAME for both(think about the strong AA filter)
• CA is the (nearly)SAME for both

And the ONLY difference is flare resistance like I said. So the
optical performance is the same.

On my Canon 300D I had a Tokina 12-24mm and on my Pentax K100D I have a Pentax DA12-24mm, so I know from experience what they are like and how they perform. Personally I don't care about tests, I like taking pictures. The Pentax DA12-24mm is a joy to use, simply because it is about 25% lighter in weight than the Tokina 12-24mm. I hardly took my Tokina 12-24mm with me, whereas I don't hesitate to take my Pentax DA12-24mm.

Probably you mean that the optical performance is the same when the sun is not included in your picture. But when the sun is included, the optical performance of the Tokina is less good than the performance of the Pentax.

 

[superbaguy]

I had been using Capture One for awhile (and before that Raw Shooter). I now use DXO for my raw conversion needs. It does have a CA correction that works for the lenses it supports, but how are others correcting CA at conversion? Is this an Adobe thing?

Also, isn't there some degradation to the picture in doing this correction? Isn't it likely that it still won't be as sharp as if you had shot the photo with a lens that had relatively less CA?

 

[distudio]

Interesting that the Pentax K10D is pulling about 100 lines more
per mm than the Nikon.

Not true, the measure is "Line widths per picture height", you should consider the following notation from the linked page below in which there is also a link to a page explaining the testing theory:

"Please note that the results are only comparable within the Pentax lens test group!."

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/pentax_1224_4/index.htm

--
Rob

 

[distudio]

I had been using Capture One for awhile (and before that Raw
Shooter). I now use DXO for my raw conversion needs. It does have
a CA correction that works for the lenses it supports, but how are
others correcting CA at conversion? Is this an Adobe thing?

It's fairly easy to implement transverse chromatic aberration correction, all that is required is to scale the colour channels about the axis of the lens. ACR actually does this quite well and has one of the best interfaces to visualize the direct effect of the CA adjustment real-time.

Also, isn't there some degradation to the picture in doing this
correction? Isn't it likely that it still won't be as sharp as if
you had shot the photo with a lens that had relatively less CA?

Generally the image will appear visibly sharper when the TCA is corrected but of course no CA to start with is preferential but then nothing can help an inherently soft lens.

--
Rob

 

[chris gunn]

The Tokina lenses have the same coatings as the Pentax ones.

Hmmh, probably only true for the front element.

Yes? Where does this come from? why would only the most coated element be the same?

--
cheers!

Gunn

-- Get a big lens and get closer™.

http://www.dpreview.pentaxistDS.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.y3m.net/penwik/pmwiki.php/Main/PentaxLensWiki
FAQ: http://www.pentaxuser.org/tiki-index.php

 

[ogl69]

We do not want to say that 16-50 is a bad lens, we just can call it "standard",
not better, not worse than something else 18-50, 17-50, 17-55 etc.
Pentax will be good with motor and WP, but it's not miracle.)

 

[Joseph Tainter]

performance after what we saw with the 12-24.

Equal performance Tokina/Pentax 12-24mm?

According to Photozone:

"It seems as if the lens is less prone to flare compared to its
Tokina variant - surely an effect of the SMC coating."

I think you didn't read what I said earlier, I said already that
the ONLY difference is the flare. Nothing else, everything is the
SAME.

Priyantha, do not understand what other people write, or do you just ignore it?

Look at the tests of the Tokina 12-24 and the DA 12-24 in Popular Photography. The DA 12-24 tests better than the Tokina in more ways than just flare resistance. Although they have the same optical formula, they do not yield equal optical results. Pentax implemented the optical formula better.

Priyantha, are you a troll?

Joe

 

[Joseph Tainter]

Usually this is where Roland reminds us all that the Pentax
versions of these lenses have different coatings and will perform
better than the Tokina versions.

No, that is not correct. I have written several times on this forum
that the coatings are the same, because it is too expensive to
coate the same optical elements differently. This also holds true
for the Samsung and Pentax versions of the same lenses, they all
have the same coating.

Roland is correct.

Joe

 

[Joseph Tainter]

Unfortunately I was right...
This is a very bad design I think after seeing that much of barrel
distortions and also very very much CA

And the Pentax 16-50 is supposed to be the same lens design...

Don't buy one. Then tells us--just once, please--that you have bought a different lens. And please stop these posts.

Thank you.

Joe