Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 on Photozone

[massimo_foti]

<p>There is a review on Photozone:<br /><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff</a><br>

Results are good, but looks like they fund some serious sample variations.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Massimo, thanks for that. The sample variation problem reminds me of a (possibly legendary) story about post-war Nikon lens production. According to the story at the end of the production process was a test bench and a man with a hammer...</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I guess this is why it has such a competitive price.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Tokina's 11-16 and 12-24 have competitive prices too. But I haven't heard about many sample variations...</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>Yes, the sample variation is a bit worrisome. On the Fred Miranda forum someone received a bad and an okay sample before finally obtaining a really good one. I received one last month, but it was slightly decentered, noticeable at f/8 on a 5D. For my balcony test scene, I got much sharper images when the camera was held upside down. I sent it back for an exchange (Tokina does not appear to fix this lens in service centers yet) and I am waiting for a new one from Japan which could take about 4 weeks. Take into account a testing and return period before the time you actually hope to use the lens.<br>

I think anyone who buys this will look critically for a good quality sample of this lens, as there is simply no point in lugging around 1 kg of unsharp glass limited to 28mm on the long end with no filter option. Also because the lens will be used on near-future 30 MP cameras which will be less forgiving in terms of resolution.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Oscar,</p>

<p>How do you like your good 16-28mm now? I am interested in the lens. I have the 35L so the lack of it going to 35mm doesn't worry me at all.</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>Strange that a fast lens for landscape is incapable of mounting filters, such as ND or ND grad, something that a photographer might miss for certain effects or circumstances. Despite it's specs, its limitations make it somewhat of a specialist lens.</p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>There is quite a trend of "bulb-like" front elements for WA lenses that can't accept filters. See Nikon 14-24, Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 and 12-24mm F4.5-5.6, or even Olympus and Panasonic WAs for 4/3 and Micro 4/3.<br>

Personally I don't care, since I value more speed for low-light usage. But I can see it being a problem. I guess if you are into landscapes you may be better served by a slower lens, that can accept filters. Most likely it will be cheaper and not as heavy. In fact the looks like upcoming Tokina 17-35 f/4.0 could meet those criteria</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>Robin,<br>

Not sure you read this because this thread has shifted off the main forum page, but I received the sample this week and I've put up test shots:<br>

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=37833118<br>

I think this isn't a very good sample. At longer lengths it is decentered. It is well described by Photozone's side note. So, as such, it seems a typical sample...</p>