Reading mode: Light Dark

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

Go to last post
Very interesting in that 50mm f/2.8 was the worse case for sharpness for my copy and clearly your imiage is just fine to my eye. So far the wedding this past weekend is looking just fine as I work through the 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
 
It was a surprise for me, too! I took some boring test shots of my book shelf, and this pictures weren't very encouraging at 24/35/50mm and f2.8. But in real world settings, the lens is pretty good.

I am curious to see your wedding pics taken with this lens!

--
Markus
http://www.flickr.com/markus71
 
jtsmall said:
So far I am not dissappointed. The build and handling is on par with
Nkon. In fact, as others have noted before, the Tokina is a joy to
use.
Click to expand...
photozone.de said:
At 50mm you can move the inner tube a little but the lens system
does not "rattle" at this setting.
Click to expand...
As I own the 17-55/2.8 and I am pretty sure the only things that qualifies its steep price tag over the Tokina are it's brick-like build quality and AF-S, I am not so sure if "on par with Nikon" is right. Definitely better than all consumer midrange Nikkors, but the pro lenses?

Plus, distortion is 2/3 worse on the Tokina, resolution seems a bit better, CA is more then twice as bad on the Tokina (although I have to say my Nikkor copy doesn't get away with 1,25px at 17mm for sure). I was disappointed by the photozone review of the lens, I always thought it may outperform my lens so that I can trade it in an get some money back.

Kind regards,
Martin

--
http://www.datzinger.net
 
Martin Datzinger said:
As I own the 17-55/2.8 and I am pretty sure the only things that
qualifies its steep price tag over the Tokina are it's brick-like
build quality and AF-S, I am not so sure if "on par with Nikon" is
right. Definitely better than all consumer midrange Nikkors, but the pro lenses?
Click to expand...
I tested tokina and returned it the next day, expecting its usual tough built but got disappointed since front barrel noticably wobbles at 16mm position. As for image quality : razor sharp at center, right from f/2.8 however noticably fuzzier on all corners compared to tamron 17-50, even up to 5.6-8. Maybe a bad copy, but I never experienced a worse tamron.
 
Well that is a nice question for the other owners of the Tokina:

Does the front end woubles at 16mm? If find that strange because that is not like a Tokina... Very interested in that.

Also.. do you have some pictures from the day you had the Tokina. Interested in that sharpness...
 
RvdBNL said:
Does the front end woubles at 16mm? If find that strange because that
is not like a Tokina... Very interested in that.
Click to expand...
I'm interested to hear from others as well. Front portion of 16-50 that I tried wobbled by quite a fair amount when zoomed in, but seemed solid as it extends a bit.
RvdBNL said:
Also.. do you have some pictures from the day you had the Tokina.
Interested in that sharpness...
Click to expand...
I didn't have much time and only took embarassing 'brickwall' or bookshelf shots, so background needs to be properly grayed out. ;-) Looking at those minute differences, I wouldn't mind using either lens, as tokina's color is friendlier to the eye compared to 'cold' tamron. However, considering significant price gap and suspicious built of that copy, I'd rather stick with my trusty tamron.

Anyway, here's compilation of untouched, unsharpened f/2.8 and 5.6 shots: d80 jpg fine, on tripod and remote, iso 320, cool FL wb. Tamron's shutter at f/2.8 aperture priority was 1/5", while tokina's was 1/4". In general same pattern can be seen at 24, 35 and 50mm FL: uniform sharpness at near center with slightly fuzzy corners, esp at 2.8 compared to tamron. Hope this helps.

 
Thanks. The Tamron seams sharper at f/2.8 but you also prefer the colours of the Tokina. As so do I.

All information is still welcome as I still have not seem one IRL. My local shop does not have it in stock and I don't have had the time to drive to one that has...
 
for a limited time here http://www.pbase.com/kmsmall/sww with password = 'michelle' (no quotes). These are working proofs, the work only partially completed. All developed ACR either using CS3 or Lightroom 1.2.

How to read the pbase EXIF ... as the wedding was shot with Canon 40D, Nikon 200D and 70s bodies. For Canon most with the Canon 10-22mm, 17-55 IS and 300mm IS. With Nikon most with Tokina 12-24, 16-50 or 50-135. I did NOT use the Nikon 17-55 or 70-200 VR lenses. I tend to shoot at one focal length extreme or the other. So consider a Nikon 24mm image as taken with the 12-24. Likewise a Nikon 50mm image with either the 16-50 or the 50-135 using context to determine which.

I will eventually gather the Tokina 16-50 photos in one folder (for those who care to wait) and post the link to those but perhaps it will be useful to view the images in comparison especially as the puprose is to show so-called real world performance.

I am pleased with the results obtained with all three Tokina lenses. I did not use the Tokina 10-17mm Fish-eye for this shoot.

All taken with indirect off camera flash, either with a braket (Custom Brackets CB Jr.) and bounced OR wireless into an umbrella or diffusion panel.

--
-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
 
as they will take it back if you don't like, no hassle. I have with both before myself. The lens is good enough to warrent your hands on evaluation in my opinion.

--
-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
 
There was a good test that I cannot find right now that compared Nikon, Tokina and Tamron. I really wanted to like 16-50, because of the built quality and 77mm standard pro filter size. But after that post it was clear that Tamron and Nikon are quite comparable and Tamron is clearly not as good optically.

Tamron is also cheaper. Since I thought 17-55 was too much for my budget at this time I went with Tamron, since for me the main reason for getting this kind of lens as opposed to 18-200 VR is the f/2.8 speed, and Tokina was just not that good wide open. This can be seen in photozone.de review as well.

So if not for that annoying Tamron that makes such great optical lenses I would go with Tokina. :) This seems to be the pattern 17-50 better than 16-50, 90 better than 100.
--
Eugene

 
Yes, I agree ... based on pixel peeping the Tamron wins in some ways. Have you bought it?

I can say that I'm satisfied with the Tokina based on the wedding shoot, the url posted two messages above. This includes f/2.8. But also consider this, flash is always used in this setting and that means one can choose to use f/5.6 on any of the three lenses mentioned reserving f/2.8 for subject isolation and available light shots (the latter of which I do not generally take in a wedding setting where the action moves quickly). They are all equal at f/5.6.

In my case I initially bought the Tamon and returned it. Rented the Nikon. Bought and do not plan to return the Tokina.

YMMV.

PS. For any who once frequented CompuServe's CES Forum, this phrase keeps repeating in my mind: to paraphrase the CES Forum moderator, 'Enjoy your Tamron (Emerson)'.

--
-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
 
Talk us through your experiences during the shoot and the results you found after..
Interested in everything regarding your experiences on the Toki...
 
In a nutshell, about the same as using the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. Very similar feel handling, focus speed and overall heft of the setup with either. I have not decided yet how the images overall compare to the wedding shot with the Nikon. My take so far is that the Tokina's images are in the same ballpark. I am more concerned with my technique than the lenses at this point!



http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall/image/87316161/original
Nikon D70s 1/60s f/2.8 at 17.0mm iso400

--
-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
 
Hi to all,

This weekend I went to a local store with the cash in my pocket to get the Tokina 16-50, and I took my Nikkor 28-105 mounted in my D70 to compare both lenses and the Tamron 17-50 (that was my second option).

The build quality of the Tokina is great, but the image quality was quite disappointing, and that was too much for me.

Here you have the results from my quick test at the store. They were taken handheld (focus point is on the frog), at ISO 200, auto WB, large fine jpeg with default camera settings (full EXIF in the first picture), so don’t take this as a scientific test, just what would be a day basis use.

Full picture down sampled indicating where 100% crops are taken from:



100% crops wide open:



100% crops at f5.6:



As you can see at least with the sample I tested, the Tokina at f5.6 is even worse that the Tamron at f2.8, so despite I wanted the Tokina, do you know which is my new lens?

Greetings
 
Hi Chompy,
chompy said:
The build quality of the Tokina is great, but the image quality was
quite disappointing, and that was too much for me.

Here you have the results from my quick test at the store. They were
taken handheld (focus point is on the frog), at ISO 200, auto WB,
large fine jpeg with default camera settings (full EXIF in the first
picture), so don’t take this as a scientific test, just what would be
a day basis use.
Click to expand...
I tried out this lens in Japan last April of this year, 2 copies. I feel the same about it as you.

It is a well build lens but it has medior image quality for me. That's a pity. I was expecting a lot from this lens, mainly because of the excellent experiences I have with the 12-24 of Tokina.

I do not say it is a bad lens, I think my quality expectations were too high in relation to what I'm used to.

I have examples up at: http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda/testing_new_tokina_1650mm_f28

I have family in Japan who is selling photographic equipment and they mentioned to me last August, that the lens is not a high seller as they expected it to be before the launch.

Michel
chompy said:
Full picture down sampled indicating where 100% crops are taken from:



100% crops wide open:



100% crops at f5.6:



As you can see at least with the sample I tested, the Tokina at f5.6
is even worse that the Tamron at f2.8, so despite I wanted the
Tokina, do you know which is my new lens?

Greetings
Click to expand...
--
~ Light is eveything ~
http://www.fotopropaganda.com
http://www.pbase.com/photopropaganda
 
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