Let me know if I am crazy or not. I finally got a Tokina 11-16 to replace my Tokina 12-24 as I wanted something a little wider and faster. After running a few initial tests though, I feel like either I received a bad copy of the 11-16 or the 12-24 is a far superior lens in terms of sharpness (maybe I received an abnormally good lens ). Let me know by looking at the examples if I am crazy or not. All shots were taken on a steady tripod. I even seemed to have trouble with sharpness in the center of the 11-16, but pay special attention to the bottom corners.

11-16mm at 14mm f/4

I have both lenses (for Canon) and I find the 12-24 is great stopped down 2 notches and the 11-16 is as good throughout the range. I feel Tokina has a bit better reputation then Sigma with variations in copies of their lenses. While I will admit I know very little about Nikon cameras, the colors and exposure looks a bit flat (could be the subject or cloud cover) and I cannot really tell about the sharpness of the images on my laaptop.

are you sure the apertures and shutters were the same on the top 4 images? very odd to have that amount of difference in EV..........

Yes, they were the same, the 11-16 has a totally different color produced than the 12-24. It seems like it is about a 2 stop difference in exposure. That is really not my concern, I am wondering if the 11-16 is a bad copy or I have an unbelievable 12-24.

Not sure if you bought new or used, but Tokina has said early versions shipped without some spacing shims inside the lens that result in serious problems. I had a very early example and mine was spectacular. I've also had two 12-24's that I would give the same review - just wonderful. I'm not sure if Tokina has specified anywhere what the serial number ranges are for those affected lenses, but you might look around.

jmcfadden wrote:
are you sure the apertures and shutters were the same on the top 4 images? very odd to have that amount of difference in EV..........

I noticed that too. A few months ago I got a Tokina 12-24 f4 from B&H and it exhibited the same phenomenon. It's as if there's over exposure on the wide and mid ranges and normal exposure on the long end.

My test shot was a huge brick wall so the wide and mid shots did not include other things to trick the exposure of the camera. All shot in A mode. I returned it as I didn't feel that should be normal. Others have said to check the histogram. Don't want to do that on every shot.

It's hard to tell without seeing crops, but send it back. The difference in exposure should not be happening, perhaps you got a defective copy.

The whole bottom eighth of the frame, not just the bottom corners seem soft to me. I was thinking focus/DOF.

ddietiker wrote:
The whole bottom eighth of the frame, not just the bottom corners seem soft to me. I was thinking focus/DOF.

That is exactly right. That plus the overexposure by at least 2 stops. I am sending it back, I just can't believe after all I have read that this lens is this bad.

rsolti13 wrote:
ddietiker wrote:
The whole bottom eighth of the frame, not just the bottom corners seem soft to me. I was thinking focus/DOF.

That is exactly right. That plus the overexposure by at least 2 stops. I am sending it back, I just can't believe after all I have read that this lens is this bad.

Don't give up on the 11-16mm, you've just been bitten by the realities of modern manufacturing and shipping. Occasionally we'll all get a stinker, hopefully the place you've purchased form will make returning/exchanging it as painless as possible.

I'd send the 11-16 back to Tokina, they folks who have Tokina repair them have been very happy. Something about a spacer being left out on one production line. Mine is very sharp, but has a manual focusing defect where the foot scale is wrong and it goes way beyond infinity. With auto focus it is great and I don't want to loose it for however long a repair would take.

Tom

I'll be sending the lens back to Tokina when it gets back to me (yup, I'm the guy who sold it to Ryan). A little background: I bought this lens last year but never really used it and when I started using it maybe two months back or so, I noticed it was causing a problem with the f-stop readouts in what was then my D300, which has since been replaced by a D700. Anyway, I called THK repairs (they perform the warranty repairs for US Tokina lenses) and talked to Glenn, who apparently manages that dept. He discussed the problem with a tech, then told me to send it in for warranty repair because it needed a new circuit card. Anyway, it took them more than a month to turn it around and Glenn told me they indeed had to change the circuit card and that the repair took so long because they had to order parts from Japan. And when the lens got back to me, you can imagine my surprise when I read a description of the repair that said "adjusted circuit board" (sic.).

In the meantime, while the repair was being performed by THK, Ryan (the OP here) posted a want ad for an 11-16. I responded that I had one available but that it was in warranty repair, and he asked me to keep him in the loop when it returned. I did so, and per his request, took a number of shots at f2.8 and f11, at 11 & 16mm, on my D700, all of which seemed fine to me at the time, and I assume the OP as well, since he told me he wanted it and paid for it.

Anyway, as you can see above, Ryan performed some additional testing and discovered what really does look like a focusing flaw in the lens. I offered to send him a refund (upon return of the lens in the condition I sent it to him in) or play middleman and send it back to Tokina again. He opted for the refund and when the lens returns, I'll send him one. I've got no problem with that.

Now for my Tokina rant: I've since done a good deal of research on the 'net regarding this lens and have learned, just as many of you have, that Tokina apparently did have production issues with some of the earlier datecodes (though Tokina has not officially fessed up to that). Given the time frame when I originally bought this lens, the lens could very well be one of those that is "missing spacers" and/or has misaligned elements. While the lens was at THK being repaired I specifically asked Glenn there if he's familiar with these issues being discussed by others in various forums and he not only told me no, but that he's not seen any of the warranty returns with such problems.

In any event, I will be giving Glenn a call when the lens returns from Ryan. I'll explain the problem and expect a resolution. I'll withhold any further comments until after that call. I do expect that he tell me to send the lens back to them again, and that if they have to, send the lens to the factory for proper alignment. In the meantime, you can imagine what I'm thinking about Tokina given my experience with their repair dept.

...I have since bought a set of Zeiss ZF lenses for my D700 (and am happier than a pig in, well, you know).

</ end rant>

Jan C.

send it back. I had one and it was a great lens.

I bought my 11-16 on preorder and received it in the first batch shipped from B&H. It was perfect right out of the box. I read about problems with early copies for Canon (which was released months before the Nikon). But there wasn't a widespread problem with early Nikon mount copies that I know of.

I had to send mine in twice to get it up to speed. I also had to send my tokina 12-24 in twice for an off center sharpness problem. When the 11-16 came out there was a lot of talk on this and a factory problem(what it was--unknown).
I stilll have them, though getting ready to sell(now have 14-24 and 17-35) they are very big, but.
Anyways, when I got the Tokina back and they finally were sharp, I never gained, nor kept, the confidence in them I wanted---ron s.

ron_9 wrote:
I had to send mine in twice to get it up to speed. I also had to send my tokina 12-24 in twice for an off center sharpness problem. When the 11-16 came out there was a lot of talk on this and a factory problem(what it was--unknown).
I stilll have them, though getting ready to sell(now have 14-24 and 17-35) they are very big, but.
Anyways, when I got the Tokina back and they finally were sharp, I never gained, nor kept, the confidence in them I wanted---ron s.

Certainly can't blame you there (I pretty much feel the same way).

Well, I got the lens back and issued a refund to the OP. Now I just need to ship it back to Tokina Warranty Repair.

Jan C.

Moral of the story - some times lenses need to go back for repair once and maybe twice. But, most of all, FM members are generally good to do business with.

galenapass wrote:
Moral of the story - some times lenses need to go back for repair once and maybe twice. But, most of all, FM members are generally good to do business with.

Agreed

At last, an update regarding the 11-16 I sent back to Tokina: it took me by surprise, but UPS delivered a brand new lens from THK today. Only took them 25 days this time to get back to me.

Oh, well, now I've got a new lens to sell instead of a used one.

Jan C.

Presumably this one will be ok then ?

Maybe test it similar to the OP test and post the results ?

I have a 12-24 and it was / is a great lens, even though I have now dented it by dropping it onto a tiled floor and bent the front so much that I can only use it in MF now. Still works fine though apart from that ! Sharp, great colour and contrast.

I have a 14-24 on the way, mainly due to the damage above plus I have now gone FX.

Andy