Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 user report???

http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/tokina_resolution&page=all

Resolution tests of Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye, 12-24mm, 16-50mm and 50-135mm with comparison resolution images from Nikon 35mm f/2D, 50mm f1.8D, 85mm f/1.8D and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR AF-S lenses. All f/stops are 2.8 unless otherwise indicated. Image title indicates lens and focal length, eg. DSC4322 16-50 16mm is the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 lens image at 16mm focal length and f/2.8 aperture.

Nikon D200 AWB, center weighted, auto mode; Manfrotto 055MF4 tripod, RRS BH55 head, cable release and MLU. Crops taken from best quality D200 jpgs with default in camera settings and no post processing. Jpegcrop Windows Application used for the 100% crops.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

The 16-50 crops under 24mm look very poor! Are you sure you did not have a focus issue? I do see camera shake on the long lenses (70-200) but the lack of contrast on many shots concerns me and I think this is due to either an extremely poor lens or a serious focus error.

But if this is what it is (and I'm afraid I've seem a lot of other similar results at the 50mm end wide open), this lens will not find a happy home in my bag...

16-50 at 50mm:



16-50 at 24mm:



On the other hand, your 70-200mm at 135mm looks a lot worse than the 70mm from the same lens and worse than I expect it to look.

70-200 at 135mm:



70-200 at 70mm:



So I assume user or equipment error for these tests. I hope!

--
Regards,
Mihail
http://www.pbase.com/kocho/favorites

possibly. I was concerned when I saw the results real time and took several images to be certain that it was not focus or camera shake. I probably will not have time for two weeks to revisit this issue to the extent I would like. My results shooting real world images are good, so I do think something is amiss even though I took reasonable precautions.

I think a redo with the D70s to see if the results are repeatable.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

For the price of Tokina's 16-50, I'd rather get a Tamron 17-50 and save me half the cost.

Not saying that it's bad, but it's just not good enough to make me spend an extra amount of cash (almost double the Tammy), to get the slight bump that - to me - is not even visible to my naked eye.
--
Pictures are memories frozen in time~

I've been thinking about this ... I was using the battery holder and it is not a solid connection to the camera, especially if a heavy lens like the 16-50 is mounted. Also with the 200 + battery holder cantelevered off the 70-200, that might explain camera shake as well. The smaller D-series primes were not a problem nor was the 50-135 with its smaller size compared to the 70-200 and its very solid lens footplate.

So, I must repeat this series without the battery holder and perhaps also with the D70s as a control. Perhaps I can find time later today.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

Hey JTS, some suggestions. When i'm doing tests i take at least 2 pics for each setting, and bring the AF out of focus before focusing, first time in one direction, second time in the other. Make sure you have enough light for focusing and choose an AF target that's not too small or have a repeating texture. And use flash+tripod to avoid camera shake, preferably at 1/125 and above, if you have bright static light in the room. (I often focus in a dimly lit room with a bright flashlight in my hand, so 1/60s is sufficient; a laser pointer would be perfect for this)

I have to admit i'm not impressed by the contrast of the Tokina. But you didn't take many pics at f8 outdoors, so it's still debatable...

Thanks for testing,
Sveto

PS: It's a good idea to test AF first. I use Leon Goodman's new target for this.

jtsmall said:

... My results shooting real world images are
good, so I do think something is amiss even though I took reasonable
precautions.

Click to expand...

If you like what you get and it serves your purpose - I would not worry too much about these tests. Also, some lenses do not perform well at close-up (e.g. the otherwise great 80-200 AF-D is terrible at 200mm at under 15 feet or so wide open, as is the otherwise great 35-70 AF-D F2.8 at 70mm wide open at near the focusing minimum).

--
Regards,
Mihail
http://www.pbase.com/kocho/favorites

Hello Sveto. Leon Goodman's site looks like the real deal. Thanks for the reference. I'll study up and have another go at it.

For those who doubt, they should put their hands on one of these Tokina lenses. It will surely go into their kit no matter how it performs with a newspaper! I'm sure Julia would agree these lenses deserve to be caressed. But, as to performance I have seen enough. They are all four superb and I have done them an injustice in my feeble attempts to test their sharpness and also managed in the bargain to disparage one of the greats, the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR AF-S!!!

f/8? I have taken most at f/5.6 and 8, so I may not have posted enough. In addition to the newspaper test folder, see ...

http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/michelles_garden
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/summer

and I will post more at various f/stops 'real soon now'.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

I agree. I have not considered for one moment packing up these lenses for a return. They have handled and performed well thus far. Next I must test flash exposures with each to be sure Tokina's reverse engineering is up to par.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

is a good lens in my opinion. I had it, liked it, but at the time wanted to look more closely at the Nikon offering, which I rented for 1.5 wks. After I analyzed my photos from that rental I thought I'd go with the Nikon when I needed that FL again. The Tokina was not available then as it is now. To me the Tokina is on par with the Nikon and in that sense I'm willing to pay the difference. I could, however, use a good copy of the Tamy 17-50 and 28-75 f/2.8 lenses and be satisfied with the results. And the 200-500 also. And the 90 Macro ... well, you get the idea.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

andaemas said:

For the price of Tokina's 16-50, I'd rather get a Tamron 17-50 and
save me half the cost.

Click to expand...

From B&H Photo, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 = $449, Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 = $659 and Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 = $1200.

Tamron / Tokina x 100 = 68%, or the Tamron is 2/3's of the Tokina's cost OR the Tamron is 1/3 less than the Tokina. So you can save 1/3 off the Tokina rather than the 1/2 mentioned above.

Another way to look at it ...

Tokina / Tamron x 100 = 147%, or the Tokina cost almost 50% more than the Tamron.

Finally Tokina / Nikon x 100 = 55%

Summing up, would you rather have 1 Nikon, 2 Tokina or 3 Tamron lenses?

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

Took images today at f/2.8 and f/8, handheld. Taken with sun low on the horizon and into sunset. Here are two with suprising results ...



http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/image/85522809
Nikon D200 1/125s f/2.8 at 50.0mm iso800



http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/image/85522811
Nikon D200 1/60s f/8.0 at 50.0mm iso3200



http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/image/85522808/original



http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/image/85522810/original

Analyzing the images from this shoot (I will post more shortly) there were about, say, half the shots where one could easily see the softness at f/2.8 but in the other half there was scant difference between f/2.8 and f/8. These are two such shots of a tree stump that I frequently use. I did not reach it until sunset and so the ISO differences and nose in the f/8 shot are regrettable. However I did not use noise reduction so that the sharpness would still be aparent. Other comparsions to be posted do not have ISO differences.

What I'm now trying to figure out is why this 50-50 splint.

The newspaper (actually a page from RRS catalog) images were repeated with a more stable setup and using flash (no flash the first go round) and I will post these soon also. The results are more in line with expectations.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

Test repeated with D200 without battery holder and this time using flash. Otherwise same methods so that comparison valid. To my eye, much the same results. Soft at f/2.8. I am planning to repeat this with the D70s and also crops from RAW.

Find 8 crops from in-camera jpg as before (f/8 - f/2.8 at 50mm and 16mm) starting with this image ...



http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/image/85523915/original
Nikon D200 1/60s f/8.0 at 50.0mm iso400

I want to stress that, as before, real world images also taken today are much better at f/2.8 than these tests suggest. Find them here ...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=24806332

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/image/85424854/original

and the next seven images to match the 'edge' crops posted earlier. If one looks at the original crops they come from the edge (but not the far edge) of the original full images. More on this later. To refresh, this is the original image ...



http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/image/85424854/original

More on this later.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

--
tommiejeep

I also want to thank you for all of the work you are doing with the lens. At present I have the 17-55 listed on my cart list with B&H so I can push the button just before I head for the US. I have the Tokina 16-50 , 50-135 and the 12-24 on my wish list(the 12-24 is not in the cart because I have a gut feeling that Nikon is going to have some offer/price cut on the 12-24 then it will be decision time).

I am watching with high interest. All of them are obviously better stopped down but right now I think the 17-55 is better at 2.8. I will now have to put in some heavy hours on the net since I cannot shoot(beg,borrow or rent) with any of them!

The 50-135 is moving closer to the cart.
Cheers
Tom

You are welcome. What I have tentively concluded is that the Tokina is especially soft at the extremes of 16mm and 50mm at f/2.8, but by f/4 marked improvment and f/5.6, as photozone.de notes, is the sweet spot. Also at those extremes I am seeing visible vignetting at f/2.8 and to a lesser extent f/4 (which can be desirable in wedding or portrait photography and otherwise correctable in post). I still must look over the intermediate FL's of 24mm and 35mm, but before they were without significant problems.

As for CA, well if one shoots at f/8 it goes away for all practical purposes. Now to me this is a non-issue as I 1) shoot in RAW so it can be corrected for the most part and 2) I am usually stopped down when the sky is in the shot. However it would be great if this problem did not exist as it is annoying when shooting in the woods with low light requiring often a wide aperture and in these cases, at the extremes, CA is visible. Alas, a common issue with wide angle lenses.

The reason for my 50-50 results is almost surely because I focus on the subject and recompose before taking the shot. This generally puts the subject at the rule of thirds points, which means out of the center sweet spot, where focus is best when shooting at the extremes. In these cases, when shooting at f/2.8 and 16mm or 50mm I must remember to NOT recompose but crop later for the desired framing of the final image. If you will look at photozone.de's results on the Nikon you will note the edge preformance is also off in the same way and about the same degree.

I understand what you are going through. Decision time for me resulted in the C-word 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, but then you would have to agonize over the XTi vs 40D! In my case my wife has claim on the Canon equipment for the uupcoming wedding shoot next week.

If you are still on the fence at that time you could look over the wedding I did last year with the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 and compare that to next week's Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 Nikon mount -and- the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 on 40D -and- XTi.

That should be enough data!

If you want to see the Nikon 17-55mm wedding, find it here ...

http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/lindsays_day

password = shane and also note the link to my wife's pbase where I originally posted the entire wedding. The link above is limited to the best images to tell the story.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=24818562

for some tentative conclusions about the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 lens' optical performance. I have more data to analyze but I think these conclusions will hold up. Some have mentioned contrast as an issue. I consider the contrast excellent to my eye. Some have also mentioned flair, but performance here is easily above normal. Yes, point it at the sun and you will see flair (it will be green)! Mechanically this lens is a joy to hold and use. Among the best I have put in my hands (the same holds for the 10-17mm Fisheye, 12-24mm and 50-135mm).

For price/performance considerations see ...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=24803481

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

This is a remarkable effort. Thank you VERY much for posting so many shots, in so many variations!

I must say, I'm stunned and disappointed at the poor quality of the images at f/4 and f/2.8. I had high hopes for the Tokina 16-50.

I am disappointed too. Pentax owners had been excited about the Pentax variant of this lens (adds Pentax's AF-S and weatherseals). But I'm not impressed with most of the samples I've seen. Given the lackluster f/2.8 and f/4 results here, I don't think this is sample variation and just how it is.

I think the Tamron is the sharper lens, presuming a good sample.

Fine testing effort, however.

I think this lens merits consideration. For my thoughts on this see ...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=24818562

My results are consistent this those of Klaus at http://www.photozone.de . And they are in line with his review of the Nikon, excepting more CA at the extremes and a little more barrel distortion at the wide end. Having used both I do not think the Tokina gives away anything on handling and the build quality is on par also. So, it comes down to the equation of buying 1 Nikon lens or 2 Tokina lenses for the same money!

I will know for certain after next weekend, Sat one week from now. I'm using it in my son's wedding. And last year used the Nikon in my daughter's wedding. But this year there is a wildcard = Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8. This is the same effective lens as the Olympus 35-100mm f/2 (roughly 70-200mm equivalent) that sells for $2,200 from B&H. One pro finds this one stays on his E-1/E-410 for all his event work! I love Oly lenses but until I see the E-3 I've bought enough of them.

The Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 copy that I have is testing great so far and I plan to use it heavily. I did not use the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR AF-S so much duing the last wedding, but it did come in as essential during the actual ceremony. With my wife shooting backup using a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM I have some leeway with the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8.

Besides, have I mentioned what a joy it is to handle this lens? Now, I am wondering if Nikon's will have a 50-135mm f/2.8 offering?

Finally, I have not found the perfect lens (well, maybe the Takumar SMC 50mm f/1.4 in 35mm film days) or the perfect body and the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 is no exception. But it is no toy either. Like many of us here a dpreview forums, I am not a professional and your mileage may vary.

--

PS. Thanks for the kind words.

-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron