thitran wrote:
Couple more pictures from 12-24 Tokina. In order to get a really wide angle image, I can either upgrade to full frame camera or buy the Tokina. I chose the later route. On the upper right hand corner of the first image, there's a little dark spot, that's part of the roof.
You can judge sharpness by looking at low-resolution web photos? I'm not saying the Tokina is or isn't sharp... only that one cannot draw conclusions based on low-res reductions posted on the web.
Thanks Russ. I have actually shot with the 10-22 and was very impressed. I might have to go through this long thread again, but I don't remember anyone posting a 100% of the Tokina.
Your canyon shots are very impressive. Thanks for posting them....
Isaac, Russ,
I will post some 100% crop pictures later this evening. But just a quick look at the shingle of the car porch on the first photo, the definition and contrast are there. I see that the Canon 10-22 can produces very nice images also. I selected the Tokina because it costs reasonable and can produce very nice images. Apparently, Nikon folks really like it also. If you like your Canon 10-22, that's great, have fun.
The visibility and definition of the shingles in a low-resolution web photo does not necessarily translate into a sharp photo at the pixel level. That's the whole point. You may have noticed before that some photos displayed on a digital camera's LCD screen look sharp, but later turn out to be soft when viewed on a larger display at higher magnification. This is, of course, an extreme example. But the principle holds regardless. An 800x600 photo can appear perfectly sharp and detailed at that resolution -- but blow it up to full-resolution pixel level, and it can reveal problems with sharpness not visible in the low-resolution image.
I'm not trashing your lens. In fact, I suspect even at 100%, your images are sharp... otherwise why post them? But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if an image appears to be sharp in a low-resolution reduction. Only a 100% crop will show the kind of detail necessary to make that determination.
After looking again at the original post, the owner of this thread (scwusa) already posted 100% crop pictures. I will post 1 or 2 more later, just for fun.
DOH! Right you are. Must have forgotten about them by Page 11. I find it hard to judge them at ISO 800. The noise makes it difficult (at least for me) to compare them to Russ' for example.
The visibility and definition of the shingles in a low-resolution web photo does not necessarily translate into a sharp photo at the pixel level. That's the whole point. You may have noticed before that some photos displayed on a digital camera's LCD screen look sharp, but later turn out to be soft when viewed on a larger display at higher magnification. This is, of course, an extreme example. But the principle holds regardless. An 800x600 photo can appear perfectly sharp and detailed at that resolution -- but blow it up to full-resolution pixel level, and it can reveal problems with sharpness not visible in the low-resolution image.
I'm not trashing your lens. In fact, I suspect even at 100%, your images are sharp... otherwise why post them? But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if an image appears to be sharp in a low-resolution reduction. Only a 100% crop will show the kind of detail necessary to make that determination....Show more →
100% crop is really only useful to see what a huge, poster size print will look like. Web size, 800x600, is more than large enough to give an idea of an 8x10 print quality.
drisley wrote:
100% crop is really only useful to see what a huge, poster size print will look like. Web size, 800x600, is more than large enough to give an idea of an 8x10 print quality.
I disagree. A detailed 8x10 print requires at least 240 ppi resolution for good sharpness and detail -- preferably 300 ppi, but at least 240. Therefore, to judge sharpness for an 8x10 print, you should have a file of 1920x2400. An 800x600 print is less than a quarter of the required resolution.
In any case, my comment about the original Tokina photos on this thread was not that they weren't sharp enough, but that they didn't demonstrate the same contrast and color quality that the Canon pics did. It was only after we got off on a tangent about how to determine sharpness that I brought up the 100% crop question. No definite conclusions can be drawn yet because nobody has posted sample photos of the same subject photographed at the same time in the same lighting with both lenses.
Here are couple cropped images. There a several variables to consider: camera type, camera resolution, camera settings, raw/jpeg, processing flow, scenary type, lighting,... In order to compare lenses, you have to conduct the test in a control environment, and the test must be repeatable. If you like your other wide angle lenses: Canon, Leica, Zeiss... great. Have fun.
I am buying tokina 12-24 tomorrow. for an interior shoot.
took a few shoots at the store and just looked at them on the screen.
It is what it is a wide angle zoom lens, it’s not 50mm tack sharp.
I did get some ghosting or glow on high contrast areas at full 12mm wide angle on the sides but at 14mm it was dropping going away.
The distortion wasn’t bad either, at $500 it’s a good tool to get the job done.
I called in to Adorama today and my lens is in, I was going to change at the last minute to the Canon 17-40 but decided if it came in and was ready to ship, I'll stick with the one I ordered first, as that is a bit wider and I may end up like it a lot, I can see that others appreciate it as well, so by the end of next week I should be able to post some images!
G2
edited to add, On that zoom, does it change length when you zoom?
The lens does not change its length when you use the zoom function. Post some pictures with your new lens. I don't have any thin UV filter; so I don't put any filter on the lens at all. Most of the time, I have the hood on to prevent flare and for the front element protection.
I signed up with B&H email system before I got the lens locally. It looks like they've (B&H) just gotten some more in stock.
With their success, Tokina probably will make a super wide zoom for full frame camera in the future. Apparently, Hoya and Leica worked on some glasses in the past; so they probably learned some tricks from each others.
