Roland Mabo
Forum Pro
The Bibble RAW converter also has CA correction...
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Tokina 16-50 review up at Photozone in Nikon mount
- Thread starter caveguru
- Start date
richardday
Veteran Member
So does SilkyPix, as well as correction for distortion and vignetting, plus many other features as well including noise reduction, film look profiles etc., etc., etc. You just have to be able to read and understand "Japlish"!
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK
just look at the DFA100 and Tokina 100 Macro reviews.
The Tokina has +0.7% distortion the DFA -0.02%
The Tokina has almost 50% more CA than DFA
and the Tokina is markedly sharper than the DFA at f2.8 and f4.
So much for a lens being the same!! This just goes to prove that one can reasonably expect completely different results with the DA* on a different mount. This review doesnt mean much except that this tested sample of Tokina (which I am sure will be more prone to QC issues than a * Pentax lens - which is evident in this sample already due to the centering defect) is a decent lens in the Nikon mount - Klaus' review is good - however people should not jump to conclusions from this at all. Just look at the 100 Macro reviews and they certain dont seem like the same lens.
--
Sinan
The Tokina has +0.7% distortion the DFA -0.02%
The Tokina has almost 50% more CA than DFA
and the Tokina is markedly sharper than the DFA at f2.8 and f4.
So much for a lens being the same!! This just goes to prove that one can reasonably expect completely different results with the DA* on a different mount. This review doesnt mean much except that this tested sample of Tokina (which I am sure will be more prone to QC issues than a * Pentax lens - which is evident in this sample already due to the centering defect) is a decent lens in the Nikon mount - Klaus' review is good - however people should not jump to conclusions from this at all. Just look at the 100 Macro reviews and they certain dont seem like the same lens.
--
Sinan
That should read 0.07% for the Tokina - remember Macro lenses have very low distortion in the first place.
--The Tokina has almost 50% more CA than DFA
and the Tokina is markedly sharper than the DFA at f2.8 and f4.
So much for a lens being the same!! This just goes to prove that
one can reasonably expect completely different results with the DA*
on a different mount. This review doesnt mean much except that this
tested sample of Tokina (which I am sure will be more prone to QC
issues than a * Pentax lens - which is evident in this sample
already due to the centering defect) is a decent lens in the Nikon
mount - Klaus' review is good - however people should not jump to
conclusions from this at all. Just look at the 100 Macro reviews
and they certain dont seem like the same lens.
--
Sinan
Sinan
superbaguy
Leading Member
Good points, but what about quality control determines the amount of CA in a given lens? Why, for example, does the 43 limited have more CA than the DA40?
superbaguy
Leading Member
Is it because the 40 is a pancake? The lowest CA I've found so far in other mounts is the Nikon 45mm pancake--though even it isn't as good as the 40.
Priyantha Bleeker
Forum Enthusiast
Mmm if that's right
Then it is good news, but unfortunaly the photzone.de test didn't tell that. But it could be right, and I hope so!Not really
I am a long-term Pentax user and a sort off fan boy even sometimes ask my other Dutch photograph friends I am photographing with a old Pentax ME and MX and off course with me new K10D with some nice old MF glas. And I was waiting for the new * lenses with in mind it should be comparable or even better than the Pro-Grade Nikkor and Canon lenses. That's it
So I am not really a troll, I like Pentax and I hoping for better times.
--
Greetings, Priyantha Bleeker
Priyantha Bleeker
Forum Enthusiast
No I won't, not yet. I will wait to see how the * lenses are going to perform.
--
Greetings, Priyantha Bleeker
Photozone tests tell us that Tokina and Pentax 12-24 have the same resolution, if Tokina could be in K mount and could be put to K10D, we can see that there is no difference at all.
More or less resolution is problem of body and AA filters and image processing. In ideal condition, the same optical formula = the same results.
richardday
Veteran Member
I suspect that if you had Klaus test your "nice old MF glass" it would be not as good as the new zoom lenses in many instances.Mmm if that's right
photzone.de test didn't tell that. But it could be right, and I
hope so!
Not really
even sometimes ask my other Dutch photograph friends
I am photographing with a old Pentax ME and MX and off course with
me new K10D with some nice old MF glas. And I was waiting for the
new * lenses with in mind it should be comparable or even better
than the Pro-Grade Nikkor and Canon lenses. That's it
So I am not really a troll, I like Pentax and I hoping for better
times.
What you don't know doesn't worry you!
Pentax are obviously working hard to improve the quality of their * versions, I'm sure that they will be of a high standard when they arrive, I know that several issues of pre-production units have been around for the last few months being trialed, and the results fed back to the engineers for fine tuning.
Don't prejudge.
Personally I'm more than happy with the DA 16-45 and probably won't change it yet. I have other things to improve on, like my skills, I need to practice a lot more by taking more and better photos and understanding where I go wrong, I have a sneaky feeling that a DA*16-50 wouldn't make a scrap of difference!
--
Richard Day - 'Carpe Diem!'
Gloucester UK
John Bean (UK)
Forum Pro
Always good advice Richard. Gossip and speculation are part of human nature but they're no substitute for hard fact.
Well said. Replace "DA 16-45" with "Sigma 17-70" and the same goes for me
--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')
PAW 2007 Week 22:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/2/158654597/Large
Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (21 March 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2641073
Priyantha Bleeker
Forum Enthusiast
Well maybe yes
I have asked Klaus to test some of my lenses and I think they aren't very bad.True
You're right I won't. But I am trying to look a bit forward to the future.
--
Greetings, Priyantha Bleeker
Bahram
Well-known member
I own the following lenses:
Nikkor 50mm 1.8,
Nikkor 50mm 1.4,
Nikkor 24mm 2.8,
Nikkor 12-24mm 4,
Nikkor 18-200mm,
Sigma 10-20mm
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
Delayed the purchase of the Tamron for nearly a year because I was waiting for the Tokina 16-50mm to come out. The recent review of Tokina at Photozone.de convinced me to purchase the Tamron. I got it and just love it.
Nikkor 50mm 1.8,
Nikkor 50mm 1.4,
Nikkor 24mm 2.8,
Nikkor 12-24mm 4,
Nikkor 18-200mm,
Sigma 10-20mm
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
Delayed the purchase of the Tamron for nearly a year because I was waiting for the Tokina 16-50mm to come out. The recent review of Tokina at Photozone.de convinced me to purchase the Tamron. I got it and just love it.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum