Manual focusing on a sturdy tripod. Used live view to achieve best focus.
Camera is Rebel T1i (500d)
No processing. In camera sharpness set at 3. (other settings not modified)
All images were shot as raw, and saved as high quality jpegs.
Basically... trying to figure out what quality this lens is. Need something that is going to maintain resale value. (ie; sharp copy without any noteworthy compromises) Unfortunately this is just the third lens I've bought, so not a large number of comparisons I can make. Your feedback is appreciated.
For perspective... here is another lens I own. Canon EFS 18-155 IS (3.5-5.6) kit lens...
18mm, 1/160, 5.6, ISO200
Unfortunately I did not keep perspective quite right... this shot being closer. Not the most fair comparison, I know. (closer up we'll be able to see more details in bricks)
A few comments: your comparison test are completely invalid as the focal lengths are different. As for the Tokina, it looks fine to me. BTW, your brick wall shots are not lined up perfectly parallel...so those 'tests' are also invalid. Still, from what I can see, it looks fine. (OBTW) I used to own one too.
Also, in camera sharpness setting has no effect on RAW images.
I like mine, it seems really sharp, haven't tested it, though, just shot photos. Watch the flare, though. I just use my hand to block the sun. You get a bit of distortion, which the program DxO ( I think that's the name of the program) is supposed to be really good at fixing. Hasn't been noticable most of the time, though. The pros IMO are sharpness and the 2.8 speed. the distortion level is quite acceptable and fixable in computer. Mine isn't for sale! didn't
I like mine, it seems really sharp, haven't tested it, though, just shot photos. Watch the flare, though. I just use my hand to block the sun. You get a bit of distortion, which the program DxO ( I think that's the name of the program) is supposed to be really good at fixing. Hasn't been noticable most of the time, though. The pros IMO are sharpness and the 2.8 speed. the distortion level is quite acceptable and fixable in computer. Mine isn't for sale! didn't have
I like mine, it seems really sharp, haven't tested it, though, just shot photos. Watch the flare, though. I just use my hand to block the sun. You get a bit of distortion, which the program DxO ( I think that's the name of the program) is supposed to be really good at fixing. Hasn't been noticable most of the time, though. The pros IMO are sharpness and the 2.8 speed. the distortion level is quite acceptable and fixable in computer. Mine isn't for sale! didn't have time
I like mine, it seems really sharp, haven't tested it, though, just shot photos. Watch the flare, though. I just use my hand to block the sun. You get a bit of distortion, which the program DxO ( I think that's the name of the program) is supposed to be really good at fixing. Hasn't been noticable most of the time, though. The pros IMO are sharpness and the 2.8 speed. the distortion level is quite acceptable and fixable in computer. Mine isn't for sale! didn't have time to
I like mine, it seems really sharp, haven't tested it, though, just shot photos. Watch the flare, though. I just use my hand to block the sun. You get a bit of distortion, which the program DxO ( I think that's the name of the program) is supposed to be really good at fixing. Hasn't been noticable most of the time, though. The pros IMO are sharpness and the 2.8 speed. the distortion level is quite acceptable and fixable in computer. Mine isn't for sale! didn't have time to look
I like mine, it seems really sharp, haven't tested it, though, just shot photos. Watch the flare, though. I just use my hand to block the sun. You get a bit of distortion, which the program DxO ( I think that's the name of the program) is supposed to be really good at fixing. Hasn't been noticable most of the time, though. The pros IMO are sharpness and the 2.8 speed. the distortion level is quite acceptable and fixable in computer. Mine isn't for sale! didn't have time to look at
I like mine, it seems really sharp, haven't tested it, though, just shot photos. Watch the flare, though. I just use my hand to block the sun. You get a bit of distortion, which the program DxO ( I think that's the name of the program) is supposed to be really good at fixing. Hasn't been noticable most of the time, though. The pros IMO are sharpness and the 2.8 speed. the distortion level is quite acceptable and fixable in computer. Mine isn't for sale! didn't have time to look at photos
What did this thing do? Any way to delete all these posts? I am on a slow connection, tried to add something, and it added a new post for every word!
What I was trying to say is that I was on a slow connection and I didn't wait for the photos to download. I bought mine after reading Ken Rockwell's review on his site. Unless you got a bad copy, should be a great lens.
yeah, that'd make sense, from a comparison perspective.
Turned into more of a series of tests for different focal length/apertures.
About my only significant discovery is that my bottom left corner -- to a lesser extent -- the right... seems a bit softer than the top. Though that's not really a show-stopper, I don't think.
Have been picking apart the lens a bit as I have trip in which I'll be using it quite a bit... and past the window of return.
(wish I had a bit more experience with this sort of thing so I didn't have to bug you guys)
one of the points of this thread should not be to show the weaknesses of the Tokina, but to show *how good a performer the 18-55IS is*
It really is a little marvel of engineering that so many here on FM seem to disparage. My copy is amazingly sharp, many others have reported the same. Don't knock the IS kit lens.
On the Tokina, looks good to me, I would keep it. I am sorry I sold mine, but I just have too much duplication in the wide angle category, the 11-16 is a great lens.
timpdx wrote:
one of the points of this thread should not be to show the weaknesses of the Tokina, but to show *how good a performer the 18-55IS is*
It really is a little marvel of engineering that so many here on FM seem to disparage. My copy is amazingly sharp, many others have reported the same. Don't knock the IS kit lens.
On the Tokina, looks good to me, I would keep it. I am sorry I sold mine, but I just have too much duplication in the wide angle category, the 11-16 is a great lens.
Yeah, resolution tests I've seen say this is a great performer... (would put up numbers like the tokina, I think, according to photozone.de) I just wish it had a manual focus ring. I've gotten some really sharp photos out of it.
moonpeep wrote:
...About my only significant discovery is that my bottom left corner -- to a lesser extent -- the right... seems a bit softer than the top.
Keep in mind what I said in my earlier response...your 'brick wall test shots' are not alligned square & parallel. In other words, your focus-plane & subject-plane are not parallel to each other...hence each corner is at a slightly different distance to the sensor plane which on extreme wide angle can make a very big difference in focus.
