11-16 experience

[peter_nelson1]

I took delivery of a Tokina 11-16 that I just got in the mail yesterday, and I spent the

evening testing it.

 

My copy was just HORRIBLE wide open. I taped some copies of the Wall Street

Journal to a wall, very brightly lit and shot a series of images at 16mm, at f/2.8, f/4,

and f/5.6 at ISO 320 with my D300. Prior to doing this I noticed that it was already soft

so I tweaked it in AF Fine Tune to its best adjustment (approx -15).

 

As a control I shot the same wall with my Nikkor 24-70 at 24mm, f/2.8 at a slightly

farther distance so the framing was the same (i.e., the details were the same size on

the image). The lighting was bright enough that at f/5.6 the shutter was 1/125th and of

course everything was shot on a tripod. At each setting I took 3 shots and picked the

best one incase I bumped the camera or something.

 

The results were that I had to stop the Tokina down to f/5.6 to match the Nikkor wide

open. It was VERY disappointing! Wide open, the Tokina shots were not merely soft,

but they were soft in a weird way - on thick, black letters one edge of each letter was

noticably sharper and harder than the other. It looked like motion blur except that it

was consistent with every shot and at f/2.8 I was shooting at 1/500th of a second ON

A TRIPOD.

 

I think there's an alignment problem with this lens. I know some people have the 11-16

and love it, but the problem is that the third-party lens makers spend less money on

QC than the average fratboy spends on opera tickets, so they have huge sample-to-

sample variation. Whenever you buy a third-party lens it's like Dirty Harry - "Do you

feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?"

 

I've sent it back to the dealer and I'm exchanging it for a Nikkor 12-24. All my other

nine lenses for my Nikon bodies are Nikkors - the Tokina would never have fit in.

[Peter_in_PA]

Could you post a sample of "horribly soft"? I'm not having any experience remotely like

this with mine.

[ShunCheung]

The Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 is not a macro lens. Instead of the newspaper test, I would try to shoot something from 15 feet to infinity.

[Peter_in_PA]

Shun,

 

Except our OP already gave up on that lens and exchanged it for a Nikkor 12-24. If you

do the same test with the Nikkor, you will likely get the same results, or, according to

what I've been reading, perhaps it'll even be worse!

[elliot1]

You should keep in mind that even Nikon ships out lenses that are less than perfect - I have a few over the years.

 

I ordered the lens when it was announced and got notification yesterday that it has been shipped and I should have it for the weekend. I appreciate the heads-up, will keep my fingers crossed and test the lens carefully.

[bruce_margolis]

"Whenever you buy a third-party lens it's like Dirty Harry - "Do you feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?"

 

That's a pretty broad statement. Actually some of the third party lenses are pretty stellar. Tokina's AT-X Pro line has great reviews. My only knock with them is they still don't have AF-S versions.

 

Sigma has some great niche lenses. Their 10-20 is extremely popular and very well reviewed. Their 30mm f/1.4 has some sample variation mixed reviews but those who like seem to love it. Also, the 50-150 seems to be pretty popular.

 

And Tamron, who has been a bit slower to adopt their AF-S versions, has rave reviews for their 17-50 and 90mm macro lenses.

 

And lest you forget, Nikon has had a few dogs, too.

 

Bottom line, all of them have some good lenses. And some not-so-good lenses. Sounds to me like you got a pretty poor sample but it would be nice to see some of these test shots you are complaining about. It could help others.

[Peter_in_PA]

When you get your 12-24, do the same test and see if it comes out horrible. (It will.)

 

Then, try it in a "real world" shooting situation, more like you'll actually use the lens

for. It'll probably be fine.

 

All indications are that the lens you returned is sharper and better than the one

you're getting.

 

And let us know how you fare!

[peter_nelson1]

"Could you post a sample of "horribly soft"? I'm not having any experience remotely like this with mine."

 

I'll try to put a few up on my website in a day or 2. But really I have no idea what your point is WRT to your experience with this lens. We're not talking about your copy; we're talking about the one I'm sending back.

 

"The Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 is not a macro lens. Instead of the newspaper test, I would try to shoot something from 15 feet to infinity."

 

Earlier in the day I was running some tests on it to examine CA by shooting the roof of my house and tree branches against a cloudy-bright sky. that's when I first noticed that it was soft. BTW, in using the NX CA-correction tool I noticed that when it corrected the CA in one part of the image the CA would get much WORSE in other parts of the image on this lens. This is consistent with the thesis that this lens has some sort of alignment defect because that would result in non-uniform CA.

 

"If you do the same test with the Nikkor, you will likely get the same results, or, according to what I've been reading, perhaps it'll even be worse!"

 

If it is I'll send that back too. I've been doing incoming qual tests on my lenses for 35 years and I've never seen one this bad, so it's unlikely the Nikkor could beat it.

 

"(Dirty Harry quote...) That's a pretty broad statement. Actually some of the third party lenses are pretty stellar. "

 

The question isn't whether they can make a stellar lens; it's whether they can do so CONSISTENTLY. The big knock on the 3rd parties is that they have a lot more sample-to-sample variation. With my Canon gear I have an excellent Tammie 28-75 f/2.8 that's sharper (and lighter) than the Canon 24-70 "L" f/2.8 I was trying. And I got it on the first try. But I know of THREE(!) other people who had to exchange their first copy of the Tamron for another one, including one who exchanged his first two copies.

The Tokina 11-16 lens is half (or less) the cost of the various competing Nikons, so as Robert Heinlein might say, TANSTAAFQC!

 

. . . actually there is - it's US - we're Tokina's "free" QC! But if I valued my time at the same rate I would professionally, the time I spent testing and returning the Tokina would easily pay for the price difference with the Nikkor.

[douglas_greenberg]

Bruce wrote:

"Sigma has some great niche lenses. Their 10-20 is extremely popular and very well reviewed. Their 30mm f/1.4 has some sample variation mixed reviews but those who like seem to love it. Also, the 50-150 seems to be pretty popular."

 

The point isn't that Sigma has not designed some good lenses, it's that their quality control process is obviously lacking. Of the three lenses Bruce mentions I've purchased the latter two and had problems with both. The 30mm. f1.4 front focused and had to be recalibrated (no, it wasn't my imagination or my 'lack of experience') and my 50-150mm. worked for two days and then stopped autofocusing. Really! In fact, having previously purchased a 24-60mm. f2.8 zoom that arrived with a mounting screw missing I have experienced the old "three strikes and you're out" thing with regard to Sigma. On the other hand, the three Tamron lenses I've acquired in recent years have all been fine.

[User_276104]

"...so as Robert Heinlein might say, TANSTAAFQC!"

 

????????

 

I think there's a 3- or 4-letter limit on Internet speak (LOL, IMHO, YMMV, etc.).

[peter_nelson1]

<i>"...so as Robert Heinlein might say, TANSTAAFQC!"<br><br>

I think there's a 3- or 4-letter limit on Internet speak (LOL, IMHO, YMMV, etc.).</i><br><br>

 

It's not internet speak.

 

It dates back to 1966 from Robert Heinlein's novel "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and the acronym TANSTAAFL means "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". The term is widely used in economics and was a popular expression of Milton Friedman's. I just replaced "lunch" with "Quality Control".

[peter_nelson1]

Someone wanted some image samples. Here are some 100% crops from last night. Notice that the Nikkor at f/2.8 is slightly sharper than the Tokina even at f/4.

 

http://pnart.com/temp/wsjpg.jpg

 

Below is a shot of a printer test image, both the Nikkor and Tokina at f/4. Besides the dramatically better sharpness and contrast of the Nikkor, the other thing to notice is the weird way that the Tokina is out of focus. On the text "Bold 36 Point" note the the B l d and P letters are all darker on the left and softer onb the right. It was like this in all those shots and almost looks like motion blur except that this was triod-mounted at 1/500th of a second.

 

http://pnart.com/temp/bold36.jpg

[ShunCheung]

Peter, is the Nikkor in your tests the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S? If so, there is no focal length range overlap between the 24-70 and 11-16; in fact, the ranges are not even close. A more appropriate comparison would be the Tokina 11-16 vs. the Nikkor 12-24 as they overlap from 12 to 16mm.

 

Additionally, how far was the subject (newspaper?) from the camera in each case? Was the same distance used every time.

[Peter_in_PA]

Yes, I'd really like to know the answers to the questions Shun asks, too? Obviously,

the Tokina must have been much closer to the subject than the Nikkor, right?

 

In my experience, there is not as significant a difference between Nikon's and Tokina's

QC as you claim. Sounds almost like you designed a test with the end in mind.

[Rene11664880918]

How did I missed this? Oh! yeah! I'm away and having fun with 11-16!

 

Peter... a couple of days ago you said you were expecting yours. Some how the way you said it I felt you already had an attitude toward the lens and somehow I knew you wouldn't like it! Sorry about it! It's just an observation! Some times I feel lucky being just an amateur! I get very happy with simple and inexpensive toys. I'll go back to my lens now! Again, sorry! Cheers! Rene'

[Rene11664880918]

P. Hamm.... You said what I hold back!

[Peter_in_PA]

Rene,

 

Thanks, I usually try to post with the person who's going to read this in 2 years in

mind.

 

My weather has been HORRIBLE here (except days when I have to work all day), so

I haven't had the chance to properly test this lens.

 

btw, Rene, I really like your photography!

 

But for the shooting I have done with it, I love it and m experiencing nothing close to

what the original poster is experiencing. (I'm dying to get myself an old F100 and

shoot it at 16mm on B&W film... but I spent my whole government bribe... i mean

stimulus check... on this lens).

 

But then, I haven't tried shooting lay-down's of a newspaper from about 1 to 1 and a

half feet, as it appears he has done. Again, the Nikkor 12-24 will probably yield the

same results. I hope he does the test again. (No, really, I hope he does...)

[Rene11664880918]

P. Hamm.... Thanks for the compliment but I have a long way to go! I feel like a fish out of the water with this lens. It's soooooooo wide but I love it. I am in a hotel right now. my work is done and tomorrow I have to drive home (200 miles) on the Japanese Sea cost line! The weather forecast is predicting a beautiful day! Uhmm! I'm charging the batteries as I speak. The Tokina will be on my camera all day long unless I come across a bunch of birds, then my 300 would just pop up from my bag together with my Kenko TC, which by the way, Peter doesn't like either! It will be a fun day! Uhmm! What about the 11-16 with a TC? We have to mix and match! :) Rene'

[peter_nelson1]

The Tokina at 16mm was about 10 feet away and the Nikkor at 24mm was about 15 feet away, so that the image was the same size in both cases.

 

And N.B., that the Tokina was very soft in my outside shots as well - when I was testing for CA by shooting trees above my roof, the roof tiles were very soft. (I'll be happy to post images if anyone cares)

 

There's just no way to get around the fact that this Tokina sample was very soft. If you look at the "Bold 36" images it's clear that there is something wrong with the lens - probably a decentered element. That would explain why the NX CA-reduction tool behaved the way it did.

[ShunCheung]

To Peter Nelson: at most you can claim is that you had one bad sample of the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8. Your description directly contradicts the experience from several owners of that lens in this forum, but I am not one of those since I have never even seen this lens.

 

When I tested the Nikon 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and found serious vignetting at 24mm, f2.8, photo.net requested a second sample from Nikon USA and I also borrowed another one from a friend. It turns out that all three samples have the same vignetting problems. I am still a bit puzzled why Bjorn Rorslett and Thom Hogan both rate the 24-70 so highly. I have discussed my findings with Bjorn, and he agreed that he saw the same vignetting in the several samples he tested. We agree that the vignetting is not necessarily that big a deal in real-life shooting, but personally I wouldn't rate that lens so high:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OF78

 

I understand not everybody has the resources and time to obtain multiple samples of a lens for verification, but I think it is highly premature to draw such strong conclusions with merely one sample and without proper comparison against similar lenses.

[peter_nelson1]

"To Peter Nelson: at most you can claim is that you had one bad sample of the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8. "

 

And that's the most I DID claim. Did you see me make any other claim about the 11-16's?

 

That 3rd-party optics have a high rate of sample variation is well known. You can read postings all over P.N., FredMiranda, Nikonians, etc, about people having to buy multiple copies of such lenses to get a good one. This is the second 11-16 I had ordered (from Roberts Imaging, a major midwest dealer). The first one was found to be defective in the store! So for me that's 2 out of 2 defective 11-16's.

 

The main point about this Tokina was that it was so egregiously bad (witness the "Bold 36" image) that it's a wonder how Tokina let it out of the factory. To me this suggests they can't possibly be testing these lenses much before shipping them.

 

Just out of curiosity, what do YOU think mainly accounts for the price difference between Nikkors and Tokinas? Is it all just Nikon profit?

[ShunCheung]

Peter, if you are indeed interested in the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8, I find it very strange that you gave up on it immediately after merely one sample in your hands. Clearly plenty of people have perfectly good samples.

 

I don't believe for a second that producing low-quality lenses would save any manufacturer such as Nikon and Tokina money. Your own reaction is a very good example; people will simply return them for a refund. Every return and warranty repair is extremely costly to Tokina (or Nikon). It can easily wipe out all the profit for that unit.

 

Why Nikon lenses are more expensive? I have no doubt that we do pay for the Nikon name, and you pay far more for brand names such as Leica and Zeiss. Nikon constant f2.8 zoom do have a better build with a metal barrel, and Nikon puts an AF-S motor inside. Does it worth something like 3 times the cost? That is up to each individual to decide.

[lisa_b4]

I'd have to say that my experience with the Tokina 11-16 was the same as Peter's--VERY soft wide open, and not just the edges but throughout the entire frame. It was less pronounced at closer focusing distances, but still very poor IMHO, below are two samples taken with a D200, tripod, MLU, etc:

<br>

 

<br>

<center>

<b>Tokina 11-16 @11mm f/2.8:</b>

</center>

<center>

<IMG SRC="http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll20/photolisab/T11-16vS10-20-180copy.jpg">

</center>

<center>

<b>Tokina 11-16 @14mm f/2.8:</b>

</center>

<center>

<IMG SRC="http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll20/photolisab/Tokina11-16v10-2012-24-34.jpg">

</center>

<br>

 

<br>

My copy did sharpen when stopped down to f/4, but in the end I returned the Tokina 11-16 because I was hoping it would be a noticeable improvement in sharpness over my Sigma 10-20 and it was not.

<br>

 

<br>

I realize that ALL manufacturers have sample variation issues (not just the so-called 3rd party manufacturers), so at some point I'll probably try another copy of the Tokina 11-16, but for the time being I'm quite happy with the Sigma 10-20. It costs less, has little to no CA, better coverage, and is slightly smaller and lighter than the Tokina 11-16. I have now owned the Tokina 11-16, the Tokina 12-24, the Nikon 12-24, and the Sigma 10-20, and for me the Sigma 10-20 is the best of the lot.

[peter_nelson1]

"Peter, if you are indeed interested in the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8, I find it very strange that you gave up on it immediately after merely one sample in your hands."

 

I've never had to return a Nikon lens due to a sample defect. I currently own 9 Nikkors and over the years I've probably owned twice that many more. BTW, in the past I owned all sorts of other brands - Tamrons, Tokinas, Sigmas, Vivitars, etc. What happened to them all? Did I sell the or lose them? No, one by one they fell apart. I remember a 3 week trip 17 years ago to Australia with 2 FM2's, 2 Vivitar Series 1's, a Sigma 400, a Tokina zoom, and a Nikkor 35 f/2. I returned home with the 2 FM2's and the Nikkor 35 intact (And they still work today!) but all the other lenses came home in a box having just plain fallen apart).

 

I'm sure Nikkor produces the occasional lemon but it's clear to me from years of reading P.N, Nikonians, FM, etc, that the rate of sample variation is WAY higher on the third party lenses than on the pro-level Nikkors. (I don't know about the consumer-grade Nikkors) .

 

When I added up all my hours wasted on the Tokina - outside shots, indoor shots, uploading the images to PC to compare, and eventually arranging for the return, packing it up, taking it to the Post Office - if I was making my professional pay scale it would easily have paid for the price difference with the Nikkor. As I said, the prior one was also defective but luckily they mounted on a body before shipping it to me.

 

You can be sure I'll test the Nikkor 12-24 just as thoroughly - it will be easy because I've still got the targets up on the wall and the tripod spots marked on the floor of my studio. And I can tell you now that I do NOT have high hopes for it - it will be my first DX lens (unless you count the 70-200 f/2.8 VR 8-) ), it's slow to start with, and it's a zoom. And no one makes a really good wide-angle if we use the same standards of "good" as we do with longer focal-length lenses WRT resolution, coma, CA, distortion, and contrast. The current crop of 10-24mm lenses from all makers are pretty marginal based on all the tests I've seen. That's THE best argument for FX format cameras - lenses seem to get a lot better at 24mm and up.

 

Why Nikon never chose to make a decent wide-angle prime is a mystery - their 14mm and 20 mm f/2.8's are only regarded as mediocre - Photozone shows the 12-24 besting both of them on resolution tests and distortion.

[Peter_in_PA]

But Peter (Nelson),

 

My issue with your method is this. You are claiming the lens was bad, and your test was basically taking an ultra-

wide angle and photographing something at "macro" distance. It did not test the lens in actual use, but in an artificial

use that it was not designed for, and in a use that I maintain any similar lens is not designed for. How close were

you shooting the newspaper from. According to my comparison, to fill the frame of a D300 with that lens, it was

under 2 feet distance. Is that real life usage?

 

You will, I think, find that the 12-24 "fails" the same way. With all due respect, the newspaper on the wall test with an

ultrawide zoom is unwise. Do you really think that that test was a good test of a lens like this? (I continue to be

mystified.)