Tokina 11-16 vs Tokina 12-24

[photoLith]

I just got the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 in the mail today, went out and did some shooting, and wow, this lens is freakin awesome. My photos are now sharp as a tack.


Tokina.com
11-16 f2.8


Tokina.com
12-24 f4

I drove over to Clarkseville this afternoon to redue a photo that was kinda blurry.

Heres the photo with my 12-24


Basically the same photo and lighting taken with the 11-16mm today. Notice how much more incredibly sharp it is. Im going to love this lens. Ill take some comparison shots later tonight with both lenses under the same conditions. I only wish I had this lens when I spent a bunch of money and drove out to eastern Arkansas.

Every review Ive read said this lens is the sharpest wide angle, even better than the Nikon or Canon equivalents and Id have to agree. Plus, its about half the price of those lenses. Distortion is also almost completely gone compared to my 12-24. Even at 11mm, it doesnt look distorted and its sharp, even to the corners its super sharp.

[flar]

Nice purchase.

You should try some night shots with both lenses at the same aperture. The top photo is f4 (wide open) and the second one stopped down to f8.

[photoLith]

^
How did you see what f stop they were taken at?

Ive never taken any photography classes and didnt realize until I started reading a couple weeks ago how to get the sharpest photos, that you need to be at f8 to get the sharpest wide angle photos. I wish I would have known that years ago, oh well. I always use manual on my camera too, so always had it at f4 usually, even while taking night photos. Im sure if I would have used my 12-24 on f8, the photos would have been a little sharper but still, the 11-16 is sharper than the 12-24 ever could be.

[flar]

I definitely agree that the 11-16 has the best image quality among wide angles for Nikon, I tested a bunch last month. Probably every lens is sharper stopped down than wide open.

There's an addon for Firefox called fxif that let's you see the exif data embedded in photos (if it exists in the file, some photo editors don't save it, others can be set to save it or not)


Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D200
Image Date: 2011-03-07 03:04:40 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 11.0mm (35mm equivalent: 16mm)
Aperture: f/8.0
Exposure Time: 0.010 s (1/100)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: +3.33 EV
Metering Mode: Center Weight
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Light Source: Cloudy
Flash Fired: No
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined

[photoLith]

Dont you use the 12-24 tokina?

[photoLith]

Ok, went out and took some photos tonight, heres the results. Same settings for both lenses on the D200.


12-24 at f5, 12mm


11-16 at 12mm


12-24


11-16


12-24


11-16

Obviously, the 11-16 does a lot better at night photography with flaring from lights. Although, it still gets a funky blue flare or glare to the right of the lights, theres got to be a way to correct that hopefully. But overall, so far this lens is tons tons tons better than the 12-24.

Heres another photo I took today up in the Ozarks with the lens.



At f8 11-16


A few weeks ago with the 12-24 at f4. The difference in quality is staggering imo.

[Robert Pence]

The difference is striking. The 11x16 exhibits a lot less flare in the night shots, too.

[Witty Nickname]

f/2.8 > f/4

[Okayyou]

For the sharpness of your lens, there should be an optimal aperture, maybe less than f8. This site has excellent reviews of lenses, they have yours detailed here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

You can even compare different f-stops to see how the sharpness varies.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=3

I took a look and don't think you need to go to f8 to achieve maximum sharpness. f5.6 looked about the same to me. Usually you only need to drop one or two stops from wide open to get max sharpness. Keep in mind that you are going to lose shutter speed as you stop down and start introducing hand held blur, especially in low light, that will negate any sharpness the larger f-stop can provide.

You can also look at a lens' MTF diagram to get an idea of its performance. This site does a nice job explaining what they mean:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ding-mtf.shtml

As for that blue flare you could try a lens hood though I don't think that would help much with direct facing lights.

[Aleks]

congrats! it's a beauty isn't it? and the build, o.m.g.

[flar]

Originally Posted by photolitherland

Dont you use the 12-24 tokina?

Yes. There are two versions of it, one with the focus motor and one without. I got the older discontinued one for cheap. I also like the fact that it can zoom out to 24mm, which is almost normal angle of view and means I can do a lot more without changing lenses all the time. I mostly just take pictures of buildings and post them on this site, so it meets my needs. I read all the reviews and know the 11-16 has better resolution, is one mm wider and one stop faster, but it would have cost me nearly three times more money, so I went with cost and convenience. The results are acceptable to me.

Here are a couple night shots with my Tokina 12-24:

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Robert Pence

The difference is striking. The 11x16 exhibits a lot less flare in the night shots, too.

Is it all flare? Or is it a dirty lens?

photolitherland: don't take this the wrong way, but have you cleaned the front and rear elements of your 12-24 recently?

That 11x16 looks like an outstanding lens!

Looking at the snowy 12-24 lens photos and the dry 11-16 ones, I thought to myself, "Well, of course, he's shivering in the snowy ones!"

[photoLith]

I use a tripod on most of my photos so blurriness due to shaking is negated. I just cleaned the 12-24 too.

[mr.John]

Aren't you trying to sell your 12-24mm? it's generally not a good idea to display how poor your product is (sales wise)

[photoLith]

Yeah, well I just got a wedding gig that is going to pay pretty well, so I don't need to sell it anymore. That lens is fine though, it's just that the 11-16 is way better.

[mr.John]

well since your rolling in cash you can always send me the lens, I'm willing to make the sacrifice and take that turkey of your hands( hell I'll even pay for the shipping)

[i_am_hydrogen]

I think there's something wrong with your 12-24, photolitherland. There's no way it should perform so poorly. If that type of IQ is typical of this lens, Tokina should be sued for knowingly selling a defective product.

[photoLith]

Maybe, but if there is something wrong with it, I'm sure the warranty has ended on it since it's about 5 years old.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Nothing in this photo is sharp:


I'm assuming it's not user error because the shot taken with the 11-16 looks fine.

[Tony]

^ assuming focus was done correctly or AF got it right, I'd say it's most likely the aperture - it's too wide. That shot I would typically be setting my camera to f/11 or so.