Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon Vs. Tokina 80-200 My results

Go to last post
Boris,

Yes, those pictures you took are quite sharp. Keep in mind though, that mine were taken at f2.8, whereas it looks like yours were taken at f4.0. Also, the pictures posted were full pixel crops. I appreciate your opinion on the sharpness and the link to your examples. This type of feedback helps greatly.
Boris said:
Chris
The images with the Tokina are not sharp at all I will agree with
you there. Even though the images with the new Nikon 80-200f2.8 are
a bit sharper they are not very sharp to my eye either. I have the
old non-D version of the 80-200f2.8 and yesterday took some shoots
with it out my window all handheld and they seem much
sharper....download the originals and see for yourself
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/nikon_80-200f28/
Boris
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
Kodak Instamatic
Click to expand...
 
Chris,

One thing about testing is that the prevailing conditions--light level,wind,lighting character,etc,etc, can ALL conspire to make tests look either good or bad. In the winter, with weak,hazy sun,and gray-everything,colors can look flat and dull.

Good lighting can make a lot of difference. Look at this test photo at http://www.pbase.com/image/9607104/original

and you'll see that the LIGHT is what makes it look sharp. Look at the limited DOF in the grass.it's not really ALL that sharp over the entire photo...it's mostly subjective sharpness you think you see. This is a 2.65 megapixel sensor camera shot in JPEG mode. The light makes it look snappy, but look close and you'll see there is not enough depth of field in some areas.

For an example of the opposite of that kind of lighting,look at the small web reduction at this url http://www.pbase.com/image/9619449

and you see what wintery light can do to a fine lens. Makes it look like_ _ _ .

I went and looked at your shot of the neighborhood,and for a 1 meg JPEG,the farthest buildings looked pretty good,for a 1-meg reduction, but I can't really evaluate the sharpness from the crops....they are 104 k files,and I have no idea what USM routine or sizing routine you applied to them...there's just not enough data.

I would try some flat subjects,which are all at one distance-like a building or garage front across the street, newspaper sections taped to a wall at 10 feet with flash,and a bounce-flash portrait of a person at ASA 400 done at 105mm with flash. Those kind of test subjects will allow you to gauge the flat-plane performance of the lens. In the neighborhood shot, only the farthest buildings are in focus, and the bird feeder is too small a subject,and the OOF bkgd. is giving a subjective impression of unsharpness.

Try the bounce flash portrait at 10-12 feet and see if it looks good. Shoot some flat targets,and if you want,e-mail me a sample of a 6MP JPEG shot ORG-ORG-OFF,and then I can evaluate it better.
--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
 
Chris G said:
I can't believe that after all the testing I have done with the
Tokina, then I finally get a decent lens to compare it against to
prove that it's the Tokina and these are the replies it get. Can
someone please post something of use here before I go crazy?
Click to expand...
I agree that you've been unfairly dissed here, Chris

the posters should read your original post ...this is a crop & I believe the problem is with the Tokina for sure

the roof of the feeder seems in sharpest focus to me, suggesting that this is the spot you set the focus upon
the Nikkor 80-200 is generally held to be one of the sharpest zooms made

I am not surprised at all by your findings & am very happy that you are finally getting sharp images out of your S2
hang in there Chris
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke
 
Yes, I think they should have given you a different lens and avoid a blow to their reputation.
The Nikon lens is good so if you can return the Tokina, go for it.
At least it is not the camera!
Good luck and happy shooting.
Rinus of Calgary
 
It is possible that the lens is faulty as I think Rinus said - maybe a broken contact on one of the pins. However, from what I'm reading, I think it's possible that one of the internal lenses is "tilted". My thinking is this... the AF system looks for vertical contrast (ie. black and white vertical line through the focus point) - to be fair, the tree and bird feeder have next to nothing for the AF system to work with, but the vertical colour stripy thing is great. Now, if one of the elements is tilted, the image will be soft to the AF system, meaning it will not work right (do you get a green focus lock achieved dot even?). And if you do get the dot, then it may be off focus. Return it for a replacement, or go into a friendly shop and compare with another identical lens. Get it sorted and get out and take pictures! :) Oh, and stop down to f8 with these tests - any lens wide open sucks!

Excal
 
Derrel,

I agree with you on the lighting conditions etc. That's why when the sun poked through yesterday I though it was a great time to test. That was another reason I wanted to test the two lenses side by side, so I could get a relative difference between the two, without regard to lighting, etc.

The crops I posted have not been USM post processed. All are STD sharpening as they come from the camera. I cropped the original image and then just saved them as .jpg with the quality set on 8 I believe (it could have been 12, but I foget by now).

I appreciate your suggestions and I will definitely try the shots you suggested. I'll plan on emailing you a sample. Thanks again.
Derrel said:
Chris,
One thing about testing is that the prevailing conditions--light
level,wind,lighting character,etc,etc, can ALL conspire to make
tests look either good or bad. In the winter, with weak,hazy
sun,and gray-everything,colors can look flat and dull.
Good lighting can make a lot of difference. Look at this test photo
at http://www.pbase.com/image/9607104/original
and you'll see that the LIGHT is what makes it look sharp. Look at
the limited DOF in the grass.it's not really ALL that sharp over
the entire photo...it's mostly subjective sharpness you think you
see. This is a 2.65 megapixel sensor camera shot in JPEG mode. The
light makes it look snappy, but look close and you'll see there is
not enough depth of field in some areas.

For an example of the opposite of that kind of lighting,look at the
small web reduction at this url http://www.pbase.com/image/9619449

and you see what wintery light can do to a fine lens. Makes it look
like_ _ _ .

I went and looked at your shot of the neighborhood,and for a 1 meg
JPEG,the farthest buildings looked pretty good,for a 1-meg
reduction, but I can't really evaluate the sharpness from the
crops....they are 104 k files,and I have no idea what USM routine
or sizing routine you applied to them...there's just not enough
data.

I would try some flat subjects,which are all at one distance-like a
building or garage front across the street, newspaper sections
taped to a wall at 10 feet with flash,and a bounce-flash portrait
of a person at ASA 400 done at 105mm with flash. Those kind of test
subjects will allow you to gauge the flat-plane performance of the
lens. In the neighborhood shot, only the farthest buildings are in
focus, and the bird feeder is too small a subject,and the OOF bkgd.
is giving a subjective impression of unsharpness.

Try the bounce flash portrait at 10-12 feet and see if it looks
good. Shoot some flat targets,and if you want,e-mail me a sample
of a 6MP JPEG shot ORG-ORG-OFF,and then I can evaluate it better.
--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel
Click to expand...
 
Hi I own a Tonkina 80-200 and you are right at f2.8 it is very poor it is so soft it looks out of focus but at 5.6 to f 16 at 200 iso 100 it is excellent to my eyes. I would love to see a comparison with the Nikon a say f8 the classic sweet spot if you ever had time, if it's better than the Tokina I will buy the Nikon straight away. All the best Lea
 
What bugs me about the comparison between the first two shots at least is that the root cause of the differances is a focusing issue, not a resolution issue. Especially when looking at the branches thru the feeder. It's obvious that the Tokina and the Nikon are not focasing at the same plane. I would like to know why? Did the Tokina jump focus durring the shot?

I have never seen this problem with my early model 80-200 f2.8 ATX Tokina.

Ron
 
Yes Ron, the same thing bothered me as well. I even took other photos from a different angle. I put a large box down in front of the post. The box was from a toy so it had a lot of color and contrast. I took a photo and had the same back focus problem. And it is not just at f2.8. It's just that when I get to f8.0 the DOF increases enough to where the box starts to come into the DOF range, but the lense focus point was still about 6 feet behind the box.

As far as the Tokina jumping focus, no, since it wasn't just the one shot. I could show you at least a dozen more (pbase is down right now). I would hope that it is just a defective lens. I find it very hard to believe that Tokina could put out this bad of a lens without more people complaining about it. Or maybe it is just how it interacts with the S2. Do you have an S2? I will encourage the camera store to test it on other cameras before they send it back.
Ron Schroeder said:
What bugs me about the comparison between the first two shots at
least is that the root cause of the differances is a focusing
issue, not a resolution issue. Especially when looking at the
branches thru the feeder. It's obvious that the Tokina and the
Nikon are not focasing at the same plane. I would like to know
why? Did the Tokina jump focus durring the shot?

I have never seen this problem with my early model 80-200 f2.8 ATX
Tokina.

Ron
Click to expand...
 
Chris G said:
JohanP said:
Hi
seems to me that you are off focus with the Tokina. A really sharp
lens is the SIgma 100-300/4, even sharper then the Nikkor
80-200/2.8 at aperture 4!
Click to expand...
I am not off focus, the Tokina has the focus problem.
davide gazzotti said:
Sorry chris,
next time try to make both lenses focus on the same subject.
I expect your tokina not to be so much worse than the nikon, when
properly focused.
regards,
dg
---
davide gazzotti
projects: http://www.davidegazzotti.com
works: http://www.davidephoto.com
Click to expand...
David, both lenses were focused on the same subject. The roof of
the birdfeeder, with the bottom of the focus box slightly below the
roof line. This Tokina IS much worse than the Nikon. I have many,
many, many photos to prove it. Anyone who has followed my focusing
issues knows this as well.
excal said:
Indeed. And if the exposure is different, then the MTF will be
well off too. This comparison is hopelessly meaningless. Guess,
the focus mark was probably on the top focus square, not the
centre. Also, there's no contrast delta for the AF system to work
on.

Excal
Click to expand...
Excal, You of all should know better. I know you have been
following some of my testing. And please don't talk about the
difference in exposure. That is what is truly meaningless here. The
focus mark was in the center. As I said, I have many, many other
pictures that show it. I know I haven't extablished myself as well
as others around here, but give me a little credit anyway.

I can't believe that after all the testing I have done with the
Tokina, then I finally get a decent lens to compare it against to
prove that it's the Tokina and these are the replies it get. Can
someone please post something of use here before I go crazy?
Click to expand...
--Look at the trees in the Tokina image. It is clear that the fucus is not in the same place. Not a credible comparison.

JoeR
 
That's right, the focus is not in the same place. That's what's wrong with the lens! A credible comparison it is indeed. Not a credible reply however.
JoeR said:
--Look at the trees in the Tokina image. It is clear that the fucus
is not in the same place. Not a credible comparison.

JoeR
Click to expand...
 
Chris

i haven't followed any of your previous threads on this topic (if there are any) but reading your first post above, I read that as a complaint about the optical quality of the Tokina rather than the focussing performance. I suspect others may think likewise, hence the fractious replies...
Chris G said:
JoeR said:
--Look at the trees in the Tokina image. It is clear that the fucus
is not in the same place. Not a credible comparison.

JoeR
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Hi Chris,

No, I don't have an S2 yet. I have several older Kodak DCS cameras with and without AA filters and I use the D100 at work. I have a lot of Nikon AF film bodies too.

I hope to get the S2 soon, after paying off a few medical bills

Ron
 
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