bill_keane2

<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>

<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>

<p>Stay with the D700, and get the most out of it... <br>

Others here are more familiar with the range Full-frame lenses, but I would say you may want to consider a Nikon wide-zoom, and stay pat for a while... IF lenses focus internally, but they may telescope a bit in and out as they zoom.<br>

Appreciate what you have, and just use it to the max.</p>

<p>The Sigma 70mm may be the sharpest lens they make, and SLR.COM may give a more direct comparison with the Nikon 105mm. Naturally the 105 gives more working distance...<br>

My sense is though, if I were going Sigma macro, I'd either go 70mm or their 150mm.</p>

<p>Thanks all. I got an RMA# from an apologetic soul at B&H, and I'm holding on to store credit until I decide what to do. I'll be calling Tokina tomorrow to see what I can find out, if anything.<br>

Thanks for the help. In the big picture, as frustrating as this all is, it's pretty small in the scheme of things...</p>

<p><strong><em>"Did you compare your shots to the ones (png file) I posted above?" Pete S.</em></strong></p>

<p>Hi Pete. Yeah, I did, and your Tokina seems easily and significantly sharper than mine. I went for this lens because of it's supposed optical superiority in the super-wide zoom class (apart from some CA). Certainly I will send it back to B&H, but in addition to this, I am tempted to call Tokina directly, share my experience, and see if they can drop ship me a lens they KNOW is within spec...<br>

Either that, or I'll just go back to the Sigma 10-20mm (a lens I now wish I'd never sold). </p>

<p>Thanks for the heads up. The TOKINATEST was just an off-hand graphic. I also used a Siemans star, and lot's of other shots around the house, and outside -- all on a tripod.<br>

I now think the problem is more than calibration. As often as not, this lens seems to want to focus past infinity, <em>regardless</em> of the circumstances. I hadn't paid attention to this until I read someone else's experience with the same lens purchased about the same time. But when I checked the scale, sure enough, that's it's most consistent behavior, and on C-mode, it's just bizarre...</p>

<p>OK, lightly cleaned the contacts... Same results as before, however, I noticed something...<br>

<em><strong>Using a tripod</strong></em>, at a target about 7 feet, or at another at 10 feet, using the scale on the lens, on AF, the lens usually focuses <strong><em>past Infinity</em></strong>... Once every 7 or 8 tries it appears to focus where it should on the scale, but <strong><em>NEVER closer</em></strong> than the target, and <strong><em>almost always past infinity</em></strong>.<br>

IN ADDITION, <strong><em>still on a tripod</em></strong>, with the D200 set at Continuous focus mode, the lens <strong><em>NEVER</em></strong> settles to a focus, but jumps from one spot to another with no discernable pattern. We're talking in the range of 10 feet to past infinity, and everywhere in between... <strong><em>EXTREMELY ERRATIC.</em></strong><br>

I repeated the above procedure with my Sigma 50 1/4, and it consistently locked on at proper focus, whether is S or C focus mode... In C mode, if it changes, the change is miniscule, not dramatic.</p>

<p >Here's a partial quote from much longer test on another forum... </p>

<p ><strong>"So I set up.... a ....test shoot... and I can see it's back focusing quite a bit... <em>When I set up at 6 feet, the focus indicator is showing PAST infinity....</em> All images are F/2.8 on a tripod with remote release. 100% crops with nothing done to them...."</strong></p>

<p >This EXACTLY mimics my experience. I wonder, is it possible that the contacts on this new lens have a coating for shipping that is not allowing good contact with the body, hence, a focus beyond infinity for a target 6.7 feet away? </p>

<p >I think I'm going to check... </p>

<p>I'm sure B&H will take it back. What they can do beyond that? I don't know. I haven't posted all the various "test" images I did today, but suffice to say I don't wish to do anymore QC for Tokina. <br>

I'm sure that, when assembled/calibrated properly, this is a great lens. I really wanted to believe I had a good product this time. Others have obviously had excellent experience. That's why I went for mine.<br>

Perhaps the QC has suffered in the rush to get more copies to market, I don't know. But short of getting one direct from Tokina, tested as within spec, I just don't see myself going this route again. I wish I'd just stayed with the Sigma 10-20.</p>

<p><strong><em>"Have you checked the serial number? That second lens doesn't look ... familiar, does it? :-)" MATT<br /></em></strong><br>

Matt, I don't mind saying I thought the EXACT same thing! I remember asking the most resourceful customer service rep, <em>able to produce a lens almost out of thin air</em>, if I was being shipped the same lens I had returned for <em><strong>back focus issues</strong></em>... He <strong>SWORE</strong> this was not the case, and I will assume he was right.<br>

Still... After calling B&H I am going to call Tokina to see when this particular copy was shipped... Hopefully they track these things... </p>

<p>"Can't you do some fine-tuning of the AF mechanism on the D300, too?"<br>

Yes, but I own a D200. <br>

And truthfully, while the D300 has +/- 20 "focus steps", I'm not sure that would cover the amount this lens is off... I just re-checked my Sigma 50 1.4 with the exact same set-up, and it's spot-on.</p>

<p>Hi Peter,<br>

Center point focus was chosen and set dead-center on the paper that says, "TOKINATEST", with the Siemans Star off to the right, about 6 feet in the background.<br>

I used a SLIK PRO 340 tripod, and SELF-TIMER to fire the shutter. This approach was used in both the AF and MF shots.<br>

In re-evaluating the original posted image, Pete S appears to be mostly right. The tree branches are more in focus than the window, though the bottom of the window sill was dead-center, using a single-point focus... The trees are in fact about 30 feet behind the front window!<br>

The AF on this copy doesn't even seem close...</p>

<p>See new post, Part Deux...<br>

It says it all...<br>

This one is going back to B& H. I'm disgusted.</p>

<p>"It looks like the focus is set on the window at the other end of the garage. The tree branches are sharper than the window, but underexposed. Focus is critical so it's a good idea to verify that first when testing lenses."<br>

The focus point was definitely set on the lower window sill...<br>

Either I did not set-up correctly, or this is my second 11-16 with a significant back-focus issue. NONE of my other lenses exhibit this.<br>

I will test again, if I can...</p>

<p>Truth be told Pete, I don't know yet. It seems to add exposure at 11mm 2.8 in comparison to 4.0 (all other things being equal). And while I realise all lenses hit sweet-spots at 5.6, this one is supposed to be comparitively sharp at wider apertures too.<br>

So my expectations are high.<br>

What do you honestly think of the above posted results? </p>

<p>I hope I can do this right, but the images that follow were done on a tripod, standing about 20 feet from a garage, at ISO100, shot RAW, converted to JPEG, NO SHARPENING.<br>

I'll post the whole scene at 11mm/2.8, then the ones that follow are at approx. 100% dead center 11mm at 2.8 then 4.0, 16mm at 2.8 then 4.0</p><div></div>

<p>I am not averse to non-Nikon lenses, but my first 11-16 I sent back for significant back-focus, and what seemed to be lackluster resoution. It's the first new lens I ever returned.<br>

I just received a replacement, and haven't really had a chance to really "test", but still, with quick grab shots of brick walls this new one seems better.<br>

I was really happy with my Sigma 10-20mm, but as a someone who wouldn't mind a 2.8 super-wide, when I heard about the new Tokina, I decided to go for it.<br>

If this new one doesn't pan out (however, I think it will) then either I will send it to Tokina for service, or I'd return to the Sigma... To me, having to keep returning copies until one gets a good one is unacceptable. Because of the shortage of these Tokinas, this approach could take years... </p>