Tokina 11-16 vs Tokina 12-24

[Doady]

Originally Posted by photolitherland

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

I find it hard it hard to believe that this is the regular quality of the 12-24mm. We are talking about pictures that have already been resized for the internet, and yet there is a huge amount of blur noticeable across the whole frame. Lens blur should only be noticeable at 100% view, no? I've never seen a picture taken with any dSLR with any recent lens that looks even close to this bad. Ever.

Maybe your copy is just defective or something.

[photoLith]

^
I have taken plenty of sharp photos with the 12-24, Im sure in that photo it just wasnt focused correctly or something. But, most of my photos with the 12-24, no matter what, seemed to be a little blurry on the right side of the image.



You can see that its sharp on the left side of the image, but the right side is completely blurry which makes no sense. But whatever, I have the news lens and dont have that problem anymore. Maybe my 12-24 has an internal piece of glass that somehow got out of alignment.

You can also see that in these photos, the left side is sharp, while the right, not so much.






But in some photos the right side is completely sharp, like these photos, taken the same day as the ones above.

[Tony]

Aperture.. I blame aperture, those shot are all f/4.

[flar]

Nah, I find my version of that lens to be fine wide open, same with the online reviews.

Maybe the focus mechanism is messed up?

I do think there is also something greasy on the lens element, sometimes the oils from fingerprints are really hard to clean off, you many need to get a lens cleaning solution to cut through it. The oily lens may even be screwing up the autofocus.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by Tony

Aperture.. I blame aperture, those shot are all f/4.

Even at f/4, those shots should be in focus. They might not be nice and crisp, but they should be in focus. And it's not like the blur is bokeh. He's not close enough to the subject matter to generate bokeh.

[diskojoe]

Well, im sold. 11-16 it is!

one tip on the night shots. you might try lowering the aperture to f11 or lower to prevent some of the untasteful flare from the lights.

[photoLith]

^
The only problem with that is that then Id have to bump up the ISO if I wanted to get a good exposure and then the image starts getting grainy. But, I may not have to worry about that soon either because I am selling my mineral collection for hopefully 2 grand to a buyer so I can buy the d300s, which does much better at higher ISOs. I looked at the d7000, it looks pretty sweet but the body is too similar to the D90s which I dislike because it just feels unprofessional, small, and cheap.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by photolitherland

^
The only problem with that is that then Id have to bump up the ISO if I wanted to get a good exposure and then the image starts getting grainy. But, I may not have to worry about that soon either because I am selling my mineral collection for hopefully 2 grand to a buyer so I can buy the d300s, which does much better at higher ISOs. I looked at the d7000, it looks pretty sweet but the body is too similar to the D90s which I dislike because it just feels unprofessional, small, and cheap.

dont really understand why you think youd have to up iso at night. i always leave mine at 100 and shots come out very nice. only time i ever increase it is when shooting handheld at night.

d90's are solid cameras. sabotai uses a d90 and has spoken great things about the performance at high iso levels. i saw a portrait he took handheld at night at 1600iso that had no noise at all. but d300 is good too. my friend brandi uses that for her photography biz. bulliver uses a d90 too. love his work. always very crisp and clean.

[Okayyou]

My sister uses a d90 and I have been rather impressed with the results. Image quality and tone, particularly when it comes to portraits and people shots are beautiful. Better than my 7D which can sometimes make faces and skin look plastic-like. For landscapes and action I would go with the canon hands down. I haven't had a chance to use the d300s but I think it is very similar to the 7D. Probably a solid choice.

[photoLith]

Id go for the D90, but its so small and doesnt feel like a real camera. I know its a good camera, but I want something in my hands that feels substantial and has a good sounding shutter, which the D90 does not.

[flar]

The D90 is now outdated, I picked up a D7000 while I was in the store and after 30 seconds I knew it had a way better sensor. Outstanding high iso performance. Now I want one, but I'll have to live with the D90 for a while longer.