Tokina 12-24mm -- how bad is the CA?

I'd be curious to know if any users of this lens view chromatic aberration as

a real problem or even a potential deal-breaker. I am in the market for a

lens with this range and am reluctant to pony up $900+ for the Nikkor version

(which rarely can be found used). The Tokina seems like the next best thing,

but many of the reviews highlight the CA issue, and it looks pretty bad in

some of the test shots I've seen. If I were a raw shooter I guess I wouldn't

care that much, but I primarily shoot JPEGs. Thanks.

Here is a shot my son took with this lens: http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/_AWB4917.jpg

 

Here is a 100% crop: http://photos.imageevent.com/tonybeach/mypicturesfolder/sharing/_AWB4917_Crop-1.jpg

 

If you think it's too much CA, than you should be shooting RAW (even with a lens that has less CA) to extract maximum detail and colors from your files.

You should seriously consider the Sigma 10-20, then, as well. Same basic price point, and the extra 2mm can be surprisingly useful. I don't use the Tokina, so I leave it to others to address that lens' CA. I find it to be minimal on the Sigma, though I have found a couple of occasions (say, tree branches against a very bright sky at the edges of a 10mm shot) where I used a couple of mouse clicks in Capture NX to tweek the CA... and it worked like a charm. I was also reluctant to pay for the Nikkor, and put the difference into their 70-200, where is absolutely, positively IS worth it. Good luck!

I have never used the Tokina version, but even the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S Nikkor has some noticable chromatic aberration at 12mm. See my 2nd Crater Lake image in this thread:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GpeZ

 

There is obvious red and green color fringing on either side of that tree at 12mm.

Can CA in JPEGs be fixed?

"Can CA in JPEGs be fixed?"

 

Editing RAW files is easier and more effective than editing JPEG files.

I owned the Tokina 12-24mm and traded it for the Nikon 12-24mm because of the excessive

CA's. I did find it way too much for my taste. Certainly when shooting JPEG's.

FWIW, I like my Tokina 12-24. Plenty of examples on my site. It's my only non-Nikkor lens

and I'm satisfied with my decision still.

DXO removes the CA from your pictures perfect, it has modules for a lot of lenses(including the tokina and sigma) with all variables of the lens in it. Not only the CA but the vignetting is removed. Perfect program to 'develop' your RAWS. BTW I love my Sigma 10-20.

Does DxO only work with RAW files, or can it be used to correct JPEGs too?

I have the Tokina and the CA is an issue for me even though I shoot RAW (sorry no samples immediately at hand). If I had it do again, I'd buy the Sigma (mostly for the extra 2mm too).

I think that the 24mm focal length is more useful than 20mm on a zoom, and 10mm is a

focal length that most people will seldom find useful. The constant aperture of the Tokina is

another plus, particularly for photographers who use incident meters or studio strobes. The

Sigma 10-20 seems most suitable for landscape/tripod use, while the Tokina is more

versatile for travel photography and reportage.

I own the Tokina and I am not happy with the CA.

I own the Tokina and love it. I use dfine by Nik as the first step in processing. Does a great

job on many fronts, including CA - and the program works wonders on jpegs. 2.0 was just

released and i intend on picking it up.

maybe i have a good copy, but it hasn't been a big issue for me. a larger issue might be that there's a bit of distortion at 12mm which might be a concern for architecture shooters but not really noticeable for landscapers. so i guess it depends what you're gonna use it for. no lens is perfect, but this one's a beaut, well worth the price. it has top-quality build and essentially same specs as the nikon, so i wouldn't be surprised if they both have the same exact glass. but the tokina has the focus clutch feature which is pretty nice. nikon has bigger price tag. if that makes you feel more confident, go for it. otherwise, get the 12-24 tokina (and rebel against the tyranny of nikkor snobs).<div></div>

Eric, CA shows up in enlargements, and the example you provided is too small to distinguish CA from sharpening halos (although I would say it's a nice shot and looks fine to me). Also, I would be surprised if any two maker's lenses used the same glass (although Pentax shares some lens formulas with Tokina, so they may well share some glass); I'm reasonably certain that Nikon's ED glass is proprietary and it is clear that the Tokina and Nikon super wide zoom lenses use different formulas (Tokina uses 13 elements in 11 groups, Nikon uses 11 elements in 7 groups).

I have the 12-24 Tokina and am pleased with it. Yes, at the widest zoom settings there is some CA toward the edge of the image. I wouldn't call it "bad", but it can be seen clearly at 100% magnification. I use DXO Optics Pro to process my images, and it fixes the CA. At roughly half the price of the Nikon equivalent, I am entirely satisfied with the Tokina.

Sorry I am a begginer. Can anyone tell me what CA stand for?

CA: Chromatic Aberration, or color fringing in the images.