I received a new Tokina 11-16 today and have some questions. I've never felt a need to do much testing of a new lens before, but my first shots with this lens didn't look right to me at all. So I set my D300 on a tripod and took a few shots of my fireplace mantle.
I took the same shots with the Tokina and then swapped in my 17-55 nikon at 17mm. Nothing else was changed. I tried to make sure the camera was fairly parallel to the wall, but I'm not really looking for any edge to edge differences, the whole image from Tokina looks out of focus compared to the Nikon. I repeated the shots at 2.8, 4 and 8. By f/8 the Tokina looks more comparable to the Nikon, but still not great.
hmm interesting. i have the 11-16 as well and by f4/f5.6 its very sharp. ive read on other forums that tokina was aware that some of their lenses werent properly equipped with a washer or some kind and that if you sent the lens back to them, they would have it fixed. this might mean you may have to be without your lens for a while if you choose to do so...bummer.
My Tokina 11-16 was sharp at f/2.8 and these shots look sharp to me. Are you shooting with Mup? I'd worry that any lack of sharpness at 1/2 second could be caused by your mirror moving. I'd shoot this with a decently fast shutter speed on your tripod before you think all is lost.
The first issue is you should not compare differing focal lengths since detail on 17 will appear sharper than 16 if all other factors are equal. However the results should not be as dramatic as your shots. The best thing for you to do is to go outside and find an open area with trees at staggered distances from 15 to > 200 yards - take 10 shots at each focal length and see if you are satisfied with the results. Take the shots with no in camera sharpening like you did with these but then add a reasonable amount to taste so you can see if a final printable result is to your liking. You can not test a ultra wide with indoor focus charts like a telephoto or macro, the lens is not made for that type of shot. That 17-55 looks great but the $$ is not in the same ballpark as the Tokina that is another consideration.
Bill, comparing your images blown up in Photoshop, I can see why you'd find the differences disturbing. I'd echo the question about possible shutter flop, though. Did you use mirror lockup and an electronic release? As you may know, 1/2 second is exactly the sort of shutter speed where that really matters, as does movement imparted by your finger on the shutter button. And the Tokina is a bit lighter in weight than the Nikkor--which makes me suspect that it might be a bit more susceptible to movement.
As has been said, either MUP+electronic release (with a brief pause after locking the mirror to let vibration die down) or using flash should cancel that potential variable.
If it's not that, your copy of the Tokina would be to me unacceptably unsharp or perhaps front-focusing more than I'd want to see. I've seen a fair amount of sample variation among Nikkors--I would presume Tokina has some, too.
Thanks to everyone for the comments and suggestions.
I was shooting with a cable release, but I was not using MUP. I briefly tried some similar shots this morning using MUP in slightly better light, but the results appeared similar.
I was not getting very good results with a flash (SB800) last night, not sure why, so I opted for the longer exposure after failing to figure out what I was doing wrong with the flash. I will try that again, or look for better light.
I'll get outdoors to take some shots as soon as I have some time during the day (and if the weather warms up, it was -6 F this morning). But I would expect that this lens would be capable of taking sharp images indoors too, that's half the reason I wanted a wide angle).
I also noticed a distinct change in sharpness going from 16mm to 15mm and not so much from 15 down to 11. Could that indicate a front focus problem?
Those are the type of charts that do not work with 11-16 mm's they work from about 24mm and up. I spent time attempting to use them on my Tokina but the af grabs too much of the paper instead of the center target due to the wide angle. Going close enough to keep the target in the af sensor range tests its macro ability which is nill. I made a large copy at work on a wide format printer and was able to get solid results.
I did a little more testing with my copy of the Tokina 11-16. I used MUP and a flash as well as a tripod and remote shutter release as before. As noted above, the lens was a bit sharper below 16mm, so I stuck to 15 mm. I didn't notice a great deal of difference in the 11-15mm range. Using MUP and a faster shutter speed did not seem to improve things much, so I don't think I'm looking at camera shake.
I experimented with autofocus fine tuning. I took the same shot varying the adjustment from +5 to -15. I got the sharpest focus at around -12 (see the third photo in the link below). So I could be seeing a front or back focus issue, at least in part, but it doesn't seem to be the whole issue.
I took the same shot using a nikon 18-200mm at 18mm and f4, same aperture as the Tokina (see the fourth photo). I know the 18-200 can be a pretty sharp lens, but looking at the photozone.de, I would expect the images I'm getting from the two lenses to be comparable at least (in fact it seems like the Tokina should be much sharper than the 18-200).
I spoke with the dealer that I ordered the lens from and they were very helpful. They pointed out that wide angle zooms are, in general, pushing lens design. That, at this price point one shouldn't expect the same performance as say the nikon 14-24. I don't think I am expecting that though.
I requested an RMA while I was on the phone and will be returning the lens. I haven't decided if I will try another copy or not.
I also have this Tokina and after a few days of playing with it I could not open it past 5.6, but after a few days it was fine....do not know why, I had it for several months now and it works fine.
Thanks for posting your follow-up. Quite interesting.
Got to say that while your second copy of the Tokina looks better than the first, it is--in this limited test--not looking good enough that I'd choose to keep it.
Though this may draw the ire of its many fans, images from the Nikor 18-200 rarely look sharp enough to my eye. And in your test, that Nikkor looks much better than the Tokina. Yeah, I know the focal lengths differ, but still.
Thanks Chris. I definitely have not filled out the warranty card on this lens yet.
My feeling about the 18-200 is similar, nice and very handy but not spectacular. I would feel much better if the Tokina looked at least that good.
The research I did on this lens before purchase seemed to indicate that there were some QC problems when it was released. I sort of assumed they would have been worked out by now. Some more googling seems to indicate people are still seeing issues.
What attracted me most to this lens over the Sigma or the Nikon 12-24 was the wide/constant aperture, but it doesn't appear I'd ever be able to take advantage of that, judging by what I have seen so far.
I once carefully compared a Tokina 12-24, Nikkor 12-24, and Nikkor 17-55. This was before I went to FX and divested myself of DX lenses.
My conclusions were that (in non-flare-producing conditions) the Tokina and Nikkor 12-24's were very close to one another throughout their ranges and to the 17-55 in the overlapping portion of its range. In the 12-16mm portions of their ranges, there was no sense of a dramatic drop in resolution or contrast against the 17-55--they just went wider.
The takeaway for me was that I could shoot either Nikkor interchangeably within the overlapping portion of the range, and that going wider with the 12-24 would seem like a natural extension of the 17-55--not a visible drop in optical quality.
That copy of the 17-55 was a very good one, and I hated parting with it when I went FX. I very quickly returned my first copy of that lens's replacement, the Nikkor 24-70, and am pleased with my second copy. My point in what seems like an off-topic ramble is that I'm pretty sure the two 12-24's I tried would blow your second Tokina 11-16 out of the water in the 12-16 range.
The comparisons I'm quoting, by the way, were all done on a heavy tripod with mirror locked up and electronic release used. And while I found the Tokina and Nikkor 12-24's to behave similarly under non-flare-producing conditions, the flare propensity of the Tokina 12-24 in real-world conditions made it a much less useful lens to me--so I sold it.
Looking at the difference between your first and second copies of the Tokina 11-16, one wonders why the first lens (and maybe the second--we need more benchmarks!) ever left the factory. Production QC is one thing, but even a rudimentary check should have prevented that lens from being shipped to a customer. Don't they bother to check their output? If so, don't they catch something that any careful customer can see? If they notice, do they care so little about customers that they ship the bad lenses anyway?
I've had some truly excellent Tokina lenses, but right now, I wonder if somebody at that company needs a dope slap.
