melloncollie Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Hello!i use an EOS 400D with a Tokina 12-24mm lens for landscepes. in almost allsituations i use small apertures, tripod, and C-PL filter. i am not reallysatisfied with the image quality (CA in corners, contrast and color , softcorners). i also use a tamron 28-75mm f 2,8, and its IQ is much-much better. i'dlike to have the same (or better) IQ, in ultra- wide angle range. this tokina isone of the best crop factor UWA lens, the other ones seem to be notsignificantly better.i thought the solution is a full frame camera (EOS 5D) with the 17-40 L lens. myquestion is that does anyone compared directly these systems (FF vs. crop factorbodies , in ultra wide angle range). is there a significant difference in imagequality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
images_in_light_north_west Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I prefer my 5D and 17-40 over my 40D and 10-22 anyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 When Canon launched the 5D they published a shot of an Alpine pasture taken with the 17-40 f/4L, still available here: http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eos5d/html/eos5d_sample_2e.html Since this was a promotional shot for the camera, I assume that they decided that the image quality was not adversely affected by a poor sample of the lens or bad technique by the photographer. Make your own mind up, but it always seemed to me that the image suffers from mushy corners and edges. Have you tried correcting your 12-24 for CA in post processing using PTLens, or equivalent tools in Photoshop etc.? Do you think that your polariser could be contributing to your contrast and colour issues? What hood arrangement are you using (this can also affect contrast and colour saturation)? A bit wider, but attracting a lot of attention as possibly the best crop ultrawide is the new Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. The finest ultrawide I know of is the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 G, which can be used on a Canon 5D via an adaptor. The downside is you will need your own homebrew system if you want to use a filter: it lacks filter threads or even provision for rear gel filters. If you want to drool, start here: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Wow, that's a horribly mushy image! Agreed! I'm rather surprised. I have the 5D and the 17-40, and I don't experience anything like what's represented in that photo, particularly in the lower right of the frame. I admit my lens is a bit softer in the corners, particularly when zoomed out, but it's still not half bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjmeade Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I can only attest to the excellent image quality of the 5D+17-40, having not used the tokina lens. However, would it be more cost effective to replace the 12-24 with an EF-S10-22, it's a wider lens and has a very good reputation. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melloncollie Posted June 13, 2008 Author Share Posted June 13, 2008 thanks for your answers. Ross: thats it, i wanted to hear if is there a difference between them. Mark:the corners of this photo are really mushy, very similar to my tokina, but tokina makes it in a bigger portion, not just the top of the corners. yes, i adjusted the CA, this is not a big problem, vignetting is also not a big problem, but these loss of details and distortion in the corners. but it seems that FF+17-40 did it too, not that bad but blurry too. usually i didnt use the hood, but my problems are not caused by flaring. i know that polarizers affect a little bit the IQ but i need them anyway and think that the tamron 28-75 has a polarizer too, every time, and no problems. the nikon 14-24 - an excellent lens, but my opinion is that this lens is not designed for landscapes, too vulnerable for a mountain hike and no filters - forget about it. maybe a nikon FF body with the nikkor 17-35mm f 2,8 gives better corners? so, do you think with this tokina 11-16 will i get similar results as the 5D + 17-40 L ? i dont think so but its possible. did anyone tried it? Peter: i didnt used yet the canon 10-22 but after the tests i saw, its IQ seem to be worse than tokina 12-24 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melloncollie Posted June 13, 2008 Author Share Posted June 13, 2008 other opinions welcome ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Some Tokina 11-16 opinions: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=352&sort=7&cat=40&page=1 http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/379-tokina_1116_28_canon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now