bill_keane2 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>While I initially posted something related to this on another thread, I believe this new information is worth a separate thread -- moderators advise if this is not the case.<br> OK, I called Tokina regarding my weirdly focussing, not very sharp 11-16 f/2.8<br> <strong>Tokina is aware of a problem that some of these recently minted lenses have</strong>, caused by <strong>missing element spacers, and/or misalignment of the elements</strong>, resulting in inaccurate, sporadic focus and inadequate sharpness.<br> They are taking my lens back and doing a rebuild, realignment... If I'm not entirely happy they will ensure a full refund.<br> <strong>I think this is a stand-up gesture that I am taking advantage of.</strong> <br> I will also be calling B&H to inform them. It doesn't appear my lens would be unique with this issue.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 This thread is a follow up to the following older thread: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00S4Ek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>thanks for the follow-up, bill. i agree this is a significant development which might have been missed by anyone perusing the earlier thread who didnt read all the way down. plase keep us posted as further developments happen. good to know that Tokina is aware of the issue... you should tell them to throw in a 16-50/2.8 while they're at it for all your time and effort. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SolaresLarrave Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Well... I would have missed this information, having read that thread only once. Thanks for posting Bill!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>This explains why there are been several of these new lenses coming up for sale.</p> <p>I send props to Tokina for 'fessing-up, and I bet they get it taken care of. It should be a great lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cschweda Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Can you please post the contact number for US tokina?</p> <p>I don't see the info on their website -- especially a phone number. I have the exact same issues with a recently purchased 11-16 from Adorama.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisa_b4 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Just to clarify, I got a Tokina 11-16 back in May of last year when they first came out--and I had the same problem of inadequate sharpness, and I know at least 3 other people who also got early copies and returned them for the same reason. <br> So I don't know if Tokina is trying to say that this is a problem only with recent copies and/or that you misunderstood them, but I know that very early copies had the same problems.</p> <p>Lisa</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_keane2 Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>My sense was that these are all still in the "early" stages of manufacture and release. So, don't take my use of the word "recent" as meaning only within the last 6 weeks...<br> If you, or anyone else, had a problem with sharpness on this lens that is known to be very sharp, then it wouldn't surprise me at all if the same cause is involved.<br> I am told by B&H that the vast majority sold have not come back, but I observed that not all customers are as discerning as others...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>I should probably double-check mine, as almost all my photos with this lens have been manual focus. But when I tested it when I got it (one of the first batch afaik), it seemed great. Better double-check.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hooper1 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 <p>That is good news, Bill. Your lens should perform as well as is technically possible upon return, after having been rebuilt and hand tuned. Keep us informed. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_b.1 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 <p>It seems, that the Tokina lenses are made on Earth ,also ! Similar quality control issues are present nowdays at any manufacturer. Read the comment posted by "X-OTHER", here :<br> <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=337&sort=7&cat=28&page=2">http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=337&sort=7&cat=28&page=2</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_smith2 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 <p>Wow, why would you even think of getting a third-party lens with QC issues abound like this? As the previous poster says, it can happen to anyone, but it's a roll of the dice.........</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohanmike Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 <p>I will always consider a third party lens, partly because Nikon does not make some that third parties do, and because my only one, a Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4, is such a good lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljuddakalilknyttphotogra Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 <p>Bill I gave your message to a friend of mine who just had purchased that lens. Turns out he returned it two days ago due to it's inability to focus correctly.<br> So thanks for giving us this information<br> Lil ;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 <p>Two more of the 11-16 came up for sale on the local boards again today. I sent the sellers an e-mail summarizing what Bill learned. Hopefully they can get their lenses straightened out.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 <blockquote> <p><strong>Tokina is aware of a problem </strong></p> </blockquote> <p><strong></strong><br> <p>Have they issued an official statement?</p> <p>Happy shooting,<br> Yakim.</p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_krawiec1 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 <p>Hi all,<br> Long time lurker, first post. I was following this thread since I had an 11-16 on order and it just came yesterday. After reading the thread I was all primed to send this thing back, but, the sharpness seems ok to me and it doesn't,at least preliminarily have any significant front or back focus issues.<br> Here's an image- d90, 2.8, distance ~10ft at 100%<br> <img src="http://www.audioheuristics.org/images/tokina/crop1.jpg" alt="" /><br> Sorry about the lack of artistic merit...<br> Still, this doesn't really strike me as unsharp. I mean, at 100% were looking at an image that equates to, what, 50" so how sharp should an image at 2.8 be?<br> I don't have any other lens near as wide, in fact the next widest I have is a Nikon 2.8 28 prime. Below is a 100% crop using that at 2.8<br> <img src="http://www.audioheuristics.org/images/tokina/crop2.jpg" alt="" /><br> Now I know, NOT directly comparable. Also, you might say, well, the 2.8 28 isn't Nikon's finest. OK, still, it' a Nikon prime and for anything not blown up to 20" the sharpness is adequate. These both are sharper that my 50/1.4 wide open, which I assumed is as it should be.<br> Here's one last shot, the 11-16 at 5.6. Seems pretty sharp at 100%<br> <img src="http://www.audioheuristics.org/images/tokina/crop3.jpg" alt="" /><br> Notably sharper, which seems as it should be.<br> So, my inclination is to keep this lens. Sure, it's not tack sharp at 100% at 2.8, but it's in the league of the Nikon prime, in any case. The corners aren't all that good at 2.8, but by 5.6 the images look very good to me.<br> It strikes me as a little sharper than Bill's copy, but not all that much. Still, Bill's original images were 20ft away from the subject-with an 11mm wide at 100% it doesn't strike me as a horribly soft image. Bill's focus issue seems more problematic.<br> So I guess I'm asking, not having owned an ultrawide before, should I keep this? What do you guys think? I don't obsess over sharpness and it would be unusual for me to enlarge anything to 16x20. I'm more interested in working on my technique of shooting an ultrawide.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 <p>Don't expect miracles from a 11-16mm/f2.8 DX zoom, be it a Tokina, Canon or Nikon.</p> <p>While I don't have this Tokina, I tend to use super wides at f8 or so. Will you also be using this lens around f5.6 to f11? If so, I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about how it performs at f2.8.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_monego Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 <p>Sad to here there are problems with this lens, judging by mine, the lens is well worth a repair.<br> I do wonder, though I have no complaints about the lens, on AF it has never reached the printed infinity mark on the focus scale. It is quite quick and accurate focusing but never reaches the end point.</p> <p>Tom</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_krawiec1 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Thanks Shun, Right. Had I not read all the posts, I would have looked at the images and thought they were fine. It's not reasonable to expect ubersharpness out of an ultrawide at 2.8 in the DX format. My overall impression when looking at more reasonable enlargements is that it is as sharp as it needs to be. While it's nice to go to 2.8, you're right that I'll be using it at 5.6-11 or higher to keep the depth. I bought this since I really don't have any ultrawide experience and wanted to get something that was high enough quality to not get in my way as I'm learning. It's not cheap, but it's also not $1.5k. It's kind of a midprice lens, so I'm not expecting a sharpness miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bahrammonshat Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 <p>Mark,<br> I was happy with my 11-16 since I bought it in 1st half 2008, until I read this thread! It took me another couple of days and about 100 more pictures to decide that my lens's sharpness was fine.<br> Tom,<br> In my case aslo, in AF mode, it has never reached the printed infinity mark on the focus scale. BUT it is sharp to me!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljuddakalilknyttphotogra Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 <p>I just got this e-mail & hope I will not get in trouble with Shun nor Lex for posting it. If it upsets or bothers our moderators - - please delete.<br> I got a forwarded e-mail from Bill, I tried to copy & paste & the result looked rather strange - so -</p> <p >Basically it says that Tokina have just called Bill & after inspecting his lens the technician has replaced - & I quote "ALL of the lens elements and performed a complete realignment... </p> <p >I should be receiving this item next week.</p> <p >I am thrilled with Tokina's candor and expertise."</p> <p > </p> <p >Just in case anyone would like to know.</p> <p > </p> <p >Lil :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_krawiec1 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 That's great to hear. I've had excellent service from Nikon-one of the reasons I've not switched to Canon... Nice to know that Tokina seems just as responsive. I'll be curious to see Bill's images post fix. I'll have to assume that the rebuilt lens should represent about the best that the optics can do. Looking forward to seeing that windowsill again...;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertdarmali Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 <p>Too many posts to skim through and find what actually the problem is - I assume the lens is soft and back/front focusing?<br> I don't think this is a universal problem but more like QC problem (just like any other brand)?<br> I have one and I can't find anything wrong with it. Sharp at f/2.8 no problem at all - focus is fine, well maybe if you use the very right edge of your camera's focus point, it won't turn up as sharp as centre one but that's expected.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howard_owen Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 <p>I bought an 11-16 about August and immediately tested it. It passed. I took it on a shoot the very next day and virtually all of the frames shot with it were misfocused, even the ones focused manually. Something inside the lens shifted, at least that's my guess. Since I needed a wide lens for a fast approaching assignment, and since the time frame dictated acquiring a lens without issues ASAP, I returned the Tokina to B&H and bought the Nikon 12-24 locally. It performed well. As it turned out, I needed neither f2.8 nor f11.</p> 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