Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
Four sets with four images per set, all from jpg out of the camera, default settings. Original downsided paired with 100% center crops comparing f/2.8 to the sweet spot of f/5.6. In one case, the second image below, the focus point was not the center of the image so that one is toward the lower edge, but a good test as the acuity falls off when we move from center for an f/2.8 image as determined in the test shots posted above.

Today was an overcast drizzly day that is optimal for even lighting. I was tempted, but resisted applying a contrast curve and. of course, no PP sharpening either. So the real thing will look 'better' making this a worse case test.

Find them starting here ...

http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/image/85580630

Do you see a difference between the f/2.8 vs f/5.6 downsized 'web' images?

Do you see a difference between the f/2.8 vs f/5.6 100 percent center crops?

In either case enough to either increase the desirablity of this lens or suggest moving on to something else?

The following are the four f/2.8 images.









--
-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
 
... appears as expected and correct for i-TTL BL using both the SB-600 and SB-800. If I have an opportunity before upcoming travel I will post a few images. In any event they will appear in the same folder as the above 100% crops ...

http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/tokina_1650

real soon now.

They key point is that the flash performace is on 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
 
Nice find!

This comparsion also reveals that the Tokina is soft at the extremes wide open, at 50mm more so than 16mm. He also answers a post of which one to choose pointing out that one's shooting preference for wide open vs stopped down and build quality are the crucial factors to consider. My findings as well. In fact I also have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 folder in the same gallery as the Tokina folders ...

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

Maybe of interest to some, buried in the Tamron folder is a brickwall comparson of the Tamron compared to the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. I have not had the time to do a brickwall with the Tokina, but it will appear here when available.

Getting back to the factors discussed above, for my style I prefer to stop any lens down 2 from wide open for best sharpness, or f/8 if I'm not overly concerned about isolating the subject. For DOF I tend to limit f/stop to f/11 due to diffraction. However for macros I sometimes close down more. However, if low light or isolation of the subject is critical I shoot wide open. This, of course, argues for the sharpest lens. The rub it that it's at the edge of the frame that the sharpness fails for many including the Tokina -and- the Nikkor. However the build quality of both are vastly superior to the Tamron to my handling.

If however the subject can be kept in the center I don't think it matters which of the three lenses are choosen for most situations. If I'm really concerned about pixel peeping sharpness then I'm pulling out a Macro lens anyway!

Frankly, I would buy the Nikon if it were not 2x the cost of the Tokina ... but then again in many respects the Tokina out performs the Nikon, at least by my interpretation of the photozone.de tests. For me the Tokina wins out, for others the Nikon and for many the Tamron. So, if one chooses with their eyes wide open to the trade offs I think all three are winners.

Again, thanks for posting the link to the head-to-head comparison above.

--
-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
 
what about the sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM macro? How does it fit into this equation? I'm looking at picking one up.
--
Brad Crawford
Izumisano-Shi
Osaka, Japan.
 
went to the store and handled both the sigma and the tokina. The build quality is night and day. The sigma is ok and i wouldn't think its bad if i didn't hold the tokina. Wow is it built well and the 2 mm wider helps. It seemed to focus faster than the HSM sigma so i picked up the tokina over the sigma. Its bigger and heavier but in my opinion worth it. It was only about $90 more.
--
Brad Crawford
Izumisano-Shi
Osaka, Japan.
 
MrBojangles said:
went to the store and handled both the sigma and the tokina. The
build quality is night and day. The sigma is ok and i wouldn't think
its bad if i didn't hold the tokina. Wow is it built well and the 2
mm wider helps. It seemed to focus faster than the HSM sigma so i
picked up the tokina over the sigma. Its bigger and heavier but in my
opinion worth it. It was only about $90 more.
--
Brad Crawford
Izumisano-Shi
Osaka, Japan.
Click to expand...
Congratulations for your purchase!!

Could you test both lenses regarding IQ in the store? It would be really nice if you could also post some pictures taken with your Tokina at f/2.8.
 
Hows this?





just a quick shot in my apartment. Not scientific so take from it what you will.
--
Brad Crawford
Izumisano-Shi
Osaka, Japan.
 
MrBojangles said:
Hows this?





just a quick shot in my apartment. Not scientific so take from it
what you will.
--
Brad Crawford
Izumisano-Shi
Osaka, Japan.
Click to expand...
Thanks for it. The 100% crop looks quite nice (despite the purple CA), is it straight from the camera or has been applied any kind of PP?
 
I agree. Once in hand it convinces and is hard to ignore. It is one of the most pleasant lenses to handle and shoot that I have experienced. Tokina appears to cut no corners here and for me it was easily worth the differential with the build subjectively on par with Nikon quality.

--
-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 looks very good at f/2.8. Please do post more images because I am still interested in this Toki... Also some hard CA situations are welcome because that is the main concern with it. And maybe if you like to do that.. Try to correct the CA and tell (and show) us how easy it is.

Have fun with your new 'toy'.
 
no PP, shot raw uploaded into lightroom and saved as.

Seems sharp enough, i'll really have to experiment more can't say for sure yet.
--
Brad Crawford
Izumisano-Shi
Osaka, Japan.
 
sorry EXIF was 50mm 1/100s f2.8

i'll post a 16mm f2.8 tomorrow after work.

Also at least in Japan there is an added incentive to buy this lens being that they give you a free camera bag of your choice (out of 5 to choose from) I have to mail the form away and see what comes of it, they look like nice bags. I'll translate the model names if anyones interested.
--
Brad Crawford
Izumisano-Shi
Osaka, Japan.
 
the question being then since i am looking at lenses in this range do i buck up and get the Nikon 17-55 or will i be satisfied with the Tokina 16-50? I currently have the 17-70 Sigma and I am pretty happy but love the pics i get from my 70-200 nikon.
 
Having not shot either of the 17-70 Sigma or the 16-50 Tokina I can't tell for sure of course.

But my guess is that you will not find an improvement with the Tokina, except perhaps in terms of the constant F2.8, smoother bokeh and maybe very slightly better sharpness at F5.6 on the Tokina towards the wide end (from what I've seen posted so far), and the 16 vs. 17mm wide end.

If CA on the Tokina 16-50 is similar to the CA my 12-24 Tokina had, then it is absolutely a non-issue, IMO - I do not remember it standing out once for me (for comparison, the CA from the couple of 18-135mm Nikon lenses I owned did show more than I liked). Nikon Capture CA control takes good care of the Tokina in most cases and can't quite eliminate the Nikon's CA in some cases.

--
Regards,
Mihail
http://www.pbase.com/kocho/favorites
 
I have replaced my Sigma 17-70 by the Tokina 16-50.
The Sigma is a very good lens and I was happy with it so far.
Now, I am also happy with the Tokina.
I prefer the color cast of the Tokina (It is purely subjective).
The lens is so nice to handle that it increases my pleasure to take pictures.

Personnaly, I do not see any difference in terms of sharpness between the Tokina and the Sigma.
The CA is clearly higher with the Tokina.

You win 1 on the wide but loose 20 on the long end. You also loose the macro of the Sigma and the Tokina is heavier..

Nevertheless, if I had to choose again, I will still pick the Tokina...Why? I can't explain.It is purely subjective. I enjoy so much to use it.
 
What I see here is that all owners of the Tokina are very happy with the IQ and overall performance and that they all would buy it again.

So.. Shall I join you, buy a Tamron or wait, save some more and buy the Nikkor?? :-)

And to all other owners: please post some nice test shots...

(A CA correction example would be nice. Before and after Nikon Capture (NX) or a before and after Photoshop.. An indication on how easy and how good the CA is corrected is very welcome)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top