Anyone here use the Tokina 12-24? [Archive]

puddleduck

21-09-2005, 00:40

Hi

Any users of the Tokina 12-24 here?

I've been on the look out for a decent wide angle lens, and I can get this here in Japan for £184 (36,750 yen) which seems a steal. Tends to get good reviews, with the caveat that its prone to CA and some flaring.

I can also get the Sigma 10-20 but I don't really fancy this lens from the samples I've seen, and the consensus on Nikonians seems that its a bit of a duffer. Any Canon users have a different PoV on the Sigma?

A left field choice is also the Sigma 12-24 which is supposed to be very good, but doesn't take filters - however I like the fact that it will also work on 35mm SLR's which appeals to me - that will be w-i-d-e with a capital "W" on 35mm :)

For the price I think the Tokina is the way to go - but I'd appreciate any first hand accounts from any users here before I withdraw 36,750 yen from a cash point here :)

pkr

21-09-2005, 06:09

I've not got one but I have been looking and comparing. I have seen a lot of comments both generally and on Nikonians that says the Tokina can be very variable in optical quality. I've also seen comments that the paint flakes. It is also relatively heavy and physically large ( compared to the Sigma 10-20 & Tamron 11-18 ).

When the optics are good, they are very good and it does have the constant f4.

I've not seen anything about Sigma 10-20 quality, but I probably need to look again as my research is a few weeks old. The Sigma 10-20's advantage is the 102° angle of view, the HSM motor ( possibly dubvious value ) and it is lighter than the Tokina. It doesn't have fixed aperture which is a deffo downer. There is some CA at 10mm.

The Sigma 12-24 doesn't appeal to me much. It cannot take conventional filters and you have to use gel filters instead via a trapdoor ( dust ? ). It is heavier again than the Tokina.

£184 is a stunning price. How much is the Sigma 10-20?

Some comparison / samples that I have found -

http://mail.definitive.org/~ronl/SigmaTokina1.jpg
http://mail.definitive.org/~ronl/SigmaTokina2.jpg ( shows the difference in view )
http://ihanggliding.com/Sigma10-20mm/Processed/
http://www.ephotozine.co.uk/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=362
http://www.d95.nl/Digitaalfotograferen/Sigma/Voorbeeld%2010-20.htm
http://www.pbase.com/ghoerdt/staircases
http://www.arthuryam.com/sigma_10-20/

http://www.photosharp.com.tw/FORUM/ArticleList.aspx?TopicId=107106&ForumId=15&ParentLink=http%3a%2f%2fwww.photosharp.com.tw%2fFORUM%2fTopicList.aspx%3fForumId%3d15

puddleduck

21-09-2005, 06:42

The Sigma 10-20 is about £230 here if I can get them to take off the 5% consumption tax. The 12-24 is about £320 again less if I can take tax off. I love HSM normally (its tops on my 30mm f/1.4 even in uber-low light) but as you say its dubious on a SWA lens I agree.

I'm not that bothered about filters on the 12-24 as apparently most filters cause vignetting on SWA lens - however I would miss my polarizer which I've had on my lens almost permantently on my 30mm here. I think at £320 I probably pass - although the latest thread on Nikonians sees this as the top pick out of people who have tried the alternatives, which is always useful...

http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=1802&forum=DCForumID17

I had a nosy at the 12-24 in BIC Camera here in Toyko this lunchtime as its a funny looking beast, similar in size to the Tokina. The Sigma 10-20 is small and looks a nice size to handle.

Cheers for those links Pkr - the 10-20 is looking a bit more interesting here...

puddleduck

21-09-2005, 06:53

weird dupe one minute later..!

Radiohead

21-09-2005, 06:59

Can't say I've any complaints with the 10-20mm. Did a job last week shooting houses and new building sites for a housing firm and every one of the 104 shots I submitted was taken with the 10-20mm.

They loved them. Noobvious vignetting that I could see, pretty sharp corners and excellent colours.

pkr

21-09-2005, 06:59

I have seen a site somewhere where they use a Cokin 'P' filter mount without adaptor ring, hack off some bits of plastic and it will then just fit snugly inside the Sigma 12-24 lens hood without causing vignetting!

I was quite taken with the 10-20, the only downside at that time was for me the variable aperture. I'll have to have a look at current Nikonian thinking on that.

The Tamron 11-18 could have been a winner, but it is relatively slow and the 18mm max is a bit limiting ( full range just 7mm ! ). It's very light though.

I did see a site somewhere that put all 4 side by side ( Sigma 10-20, Tokina & Nikon 12-24 & Tamron 11-18 ) but I'll have to try and find it again. The photos were of a row of shops with a Chinese style statue in the foreground.

mbuckhurst

21-09-2005, 07:11

I've recently acquired the Tokina 12-24 but haven't had a chance to really use it earnest - from the few basic shots I've taken, I've no complaints, but then I don't have any really expensive lenses to compare it with. I haven't had a chance to take any shots outdoors yet.

Seems a sturdy enough beast and focuses fast, the clutch from auto to manual is a bit weird, but then I don't expect to switch it that often.

I chose this lens because the reviews I read rated it higher than the competition (samples shots seemed to back it up) and the price was better too.

mike

puddleduck

21-09-2005, 07:25

Thanks Mike - any chance of some samples? pretty much all the comparsions I've seen rate the Tokina very highly - and again as I can get it for £184 here that makes it doubly tempting... most people on Nikonians seem to go for the Tokina or Sigma 12-24 - are you Nikon or Canon?

I chose this lens because the reviews I read rated it higher than the competition (samples shots seemed to back it up) and the price was better too.

I tend to agree that most comparitive reviews favour the Tokina. Also tempted again by the Sigma 12-24 in the light of Pkr's post about modified Cokin 'P' filters..!

pkr

21-09-2005, 07:30

Found it! How to fit filters to a Sigma 12-24 http://www.dslr.co.uk/filters_on_sigma_12-24/index.htm using modified Cokin holders

Hmm. Looks like they were at least in part fabricated with plasticard.

mbuckhurst

21-09-2005, 08:59

sideshowbob

21-09-2005, 09:23

At £184 you're going to have a long queue of shoppers asking for you to send them back home.

Sprout Crumble

21-09-2005, 09:55

If its a Canon body, the 10-22mm EFS is peerless. Utterly first-rate lens.

pkr

23-09-2005, 09:32

I found this review on the Tokina 12-24 today. Nice in depth analysis.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4/index.htm

Boink!

23-09-2005, 10:06

At £184 you're going to have a long queue of shoppers asking for you to send them back home.

Hmm, wondering that meself... :thinking:

pkr

23-09-2005, 10:18

Hmm, wondering that meself... :thinking:

Join the queue :D

Even after duty ( 6.7% ), Delivery, VAT and courier fees, it's still a bargain. Even better without of course!

Boink!

23-09-2005, 10:35

I think you'll find I'm ahead of you. ;)

p00hbear

25-09-2005, 00:15

AndySymbian,
I have a friend coming to Japan next week and would like to know where (shop) you can get it for for £184 or thereabouts? Cheers.

puddleduck

25-09-2005, 00:59

AndySymbian,
I have a friend coming to Japan next week and would like to know where (shop) you can get it for for £184 or thereabouts? Cheers.

Sanpou (http://www.sanpou.ne.jp/) were knocking them out at £184.

Your mate also might want to check out the new Yodabashi Camera in Akihabara - its only just opened so they are offering promotion days - 1st October is 5% off lens days (and another 5% off with a passport) so that could be worth a look, although they are not that cheap.

I find prices massively variable here - so called "Duty Free" shops are very expensive (well cheap compared to UK prices, but expensive relative to HK Ebayers) - I guess these "Duty Free" shops catering to tourists who don't have time to shop around! I'm also going to potter over to PC Bomber in Akihabara too (if I can find the place!) as they seem to be cheap as well...

p00hbear

25-09-2005, 08:07

My friend can read japanese and said that this is the trade in price and not the buy it price. Also, most of the stuff is second hand or reconditioned.

puddleduck

25-09-2005, 09:03

My friend can read japanese and said that this is the trade in price and not the buy it price. Also, most of the stuff is second hand or reconditioned.

Oooh! Thanks for that - well I don't read Japanese so that explains it!

Brozyniak

25-09-2005, 14:02

I can also get the Sigma 10-20 but I don't really fancy this lens from the samples I've seen, and the consensus on Nikonians seems that its a bit of a duffer. Any Canon users have a different PoV on the Sigma?

Andy, I've just bought the sigma for a 20D and had my first opportunity to try it out yesterday.

I went for it as I wasn't overly happy with the Canon 10-22mm having played around with a friend's copy. IMO I felt that it didn't handle the disortion well down to 10mm and the build quality felt iffy (may be cos my other lenses are L spec) for the price.

I'm indending to mainly use the sigma for buiildings and interiors. It's not fast but gives very good results in bright light or on a tripod certainly not when wide open. Colour saturation is excellent and details very surprising given the amount of information its' trying to cram in. Not comparable to my 24-70L but then it's a third of the price. I found that I've really wanted to use it at 10mm too. Very happy with it. If I was in Tokyo right now I know that I would be running around with it and my tripod ;)

Here are some examples below followed by a full size crop for some idea of the detail:

20mm

http://www.brozyniak.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/bridge.jpg

http://www.brozyniak.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/bridgecrop.jpg

10mm

http://www.brozyniak.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/gherkin.jpg

http://www.brozyniak.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/gherkincrop.jpg

mbuckhurst

25-09-2005, 15:39

Here are three samples from my Tokina on my Canon Digital Rebel, nothing special and they were taken in a hurry (these show the reason for me not spending much time with my new lens - landscaping a garden made of solid clay is not much fun).

The full size images are 5-6MB and linked to my NTL world account so may take a long time.

f5.6 1/160 12mm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.buckhurst/IMG_2574small.jpg

full size (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.buckhurst/IMG_2574.JPG)

f6.3 1/160 24mm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.buckhurst/IMG_2578small.jpg

full size (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.buckhurst/IMG_2578.JPG)

f7.1 1/160 24mm the full size image is a crop to save bandwidth
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.buckhurst/IMG_2580small.jpg

full size (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.buckhurst/IMG_2580.JPG)

mike

puddleduck

25-09-2005, 20:45

Cheers Brozyniak and mbuckhurst

The Tokina looks very sharp to my eyes in the Sunflower crop.

Still torn between this and the Sigma!

puddleduck

26-09-2005, 00:24

BTW Brozyniak I forgot to ask - your shots have a sort of soft / plasticy look to my eyes - did you shoot these on high ISO with noise reduction by any chance?

Did you do any Post Processing on them? The reason I ask is that I don't post-process so is this a typical out-of-the-camera shot?

Cheers!

Brozyniak

26-09-2005, 08:21

Andy,

The shots were all taken at 100 iso with an exposure of about 20 secs and post processed in Adobe bridge.

I'm not sure what you mean. The shots look pretty crisp to me perhaps it's the lighting? I've got a daytime shot somewhere that i'll put up later.

Radiohead

26-09-2005, 08:43

Did you do any Post Processing on them? The reason I ask is that I don't post-process so is this a typical out-of-the-camera shot?

Do you not do any PP Andy - even sharpening?

puddleduck

26-09-2005, 08:49

Do you not do any PP Andy - even sharpening?

Nope - too be honest I 95% of the time I tend to shoot in RAW + JPeg basic and I just resize my JPeg Basic for web - thats what I tend to post here 99% of the time - JPeg basic resized down to 800x532. If I print stuff I tend to do a RAW->JPEG conversion but for web stuff can't really be arsed if I'm honest :nuts:

If I ever get round to it I've got 100's of RAW files that need doing...!! I do use in-camera sharpening which I guess is applied to the JPEGs (but not RAWs I suspect)

The shots look pretty crisp to me perhaps it's the lighting?

Actually it could be the lighting - I find long exposures look a bit odd.. no offence intended! :)

puddleduck

26-09-2005, 22:27

Interesting review of the Tamron 11-18...

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/11_18_Di/tamron_11_18_review_0.html

rick67

27-09-2005, 00:42

Nope - too be honest I 95% of the time I tend to shoot in RAW + JPeg basic and I just resize my JPeg Basic for web - thats what I tend to post here 99% of the time - JPeg basic resized down to 800x532. If I print stuff I tend to do a RAW->JPEG conversion but for web stuff can't really be arsed if I'm honest

I'm astonished! I've been lurking round this forum for a few months and get the impression that you possess an array of L class and high end lenses.

You frequently post advice on lenses...and yet...ironically...you don't even sharpen your RAW files :?:

Begs the question. What's the point of all this great gear if you don't come close to making the most of it?

puddleduck

27-09-2005, 01:54

I'm astonished! I've been lurking round this forum for a few months and get the impression that you possess an array of L class and high end lenses.

You frequently post advice on lenses...and yet...ironically...you don't even sharpen your RAW files :?:

Begs the question. What's the point of all this great gear if you don't come close to making the most of it?

You may be mistaking me for someone else as I don't have L Class lens as I'm not a Canon user (well I am, but not an owner..!)

As to the rest - LOL! Well I agree to an extent - but I'm a bit "old skool" in that I actually like to see my stuff printed out on paper (real photos!) rather than the web, so for that sort of thing - say a big blow-up print sharpness is MUCH more critical than something resized down to 800x533.

You really can't (IMHO) use the web to judge lens sharpness (unless its 1:1 unsharpened crops) because you just don't know what sort of post-processing people do. Its no good someone saying "ooh look this lens is sharp!" only to discover they did 100% USM and god-know-what PostProcessing on it! anyway just my opinion. Best way to judge sharpness (IMHO) is not by the web but with a nice print at a decent size (NOT 7x5 or 6x4).... you may not agree with me off course (hence all the IMHO's) but hopefully you can see my POV.

Although if I process RAW for print I do sharpen, usually using Dx0 Optics - for webstuff I'm happy with my in-camera sharpening on JPEGs. I don't post unsharpened images, I'm just happy that my D70s does a decent enough job in-camera.

But you ARE right, for stuff I put on the Web I guess I'm not making the most of out it. I think its fair to say I've never really embraced the post-processing side of things - I love taking photos but the Pp side of things just makes me want to stick burning needles in my eyes :nuts:

Brozyniak

27-09-2005, 08:39

Andy,

I used to do just as you do. When I first bought my 300d I shot almost purely in jpeg and used the camera parameters to process the image. In general the pictures looked great, but remember there is still post processing going on but it's in the camera and it's (largely) out of your control.

I've spend a bit of time over the past few months learning about what I can do with Raw images and whilst you may want to compare unadulterated raw to get a feel for a lens I'm sure that wouldn't be doing it justice.

I personally feel that a good lens and camera combination will capture the information necessary for you to process your image into the best it can be, subject of course to each persons tastes (which I've noticed can be very varied).

With Raw I've found that I have much more flexibility when taking pictures, in particular with exposure in tricky lighting situations.

The problem with the web is with monitor calibration and quality. I can set up a picture perfectly to my eye at home and then come into work and see it on the web and think it looks awful (my work monitor is pretty bad). That's darn frustrating :mad:

puddleduck

27-09-2005, 08:51

The problem with the web is with monitor calibration and quality. I can set up a picture perfectly to my eye at home and then come into work and see it on the web and think it looks awful (my work monitor is pretty bad). That's darn frustrating

Thats my big problem - I went to an airshow a few weeks back and used RawShooter to bulk convert a few RAW's to JPEG with a few "optimum" settings - luckily DamianB and WSeed said they looked a bit "off" so I re-did them with Nikon Capture. But on my monitor they looks fine (and on my work laptop too) - as I tend to print stuff I just don't try Post Processing - when I've Pp'd stuff it looks dire (ie halo's appearing on edges and looks too oversatured on the prints), so now I just tend to leave well alone!

Actually I do shoot RAW - on my D70s I shoot a mode called RAW + JPEG Basic, which gives me a RAW file and then a JPEG with my preferred in-camera settings. Again for print, I do use the RAWs - no way am I spending a fiver on a nice print from PhotoBox then sending them a JPEG Basic :)

So I feel I'm getting the best of both worlds - all the shots on my "Good Morning from Japan" thread are completely untouched and out of the camera - If I decide to print any of them I'll go back to the RAWs.

But its really handy just to get stuff online quickly - I guess if I wasn't working in IT I'd be a bit happier to Pp but as I'm infront of a PC 9 hours a day, the last thing I want to do is look at a monitor when I get home :)

Radiohead

27-09-2005, 09:11

puddleduck

27-09-2005, 09:19

I work in IT and take the opposing view. Having spent a considerable sum on glass I want my pictures to look the best they can, every time. That means RAW and PP. I shot a christening over the weekend and shot 175 images. I edited them down to 80 or so that I liked and PP'ing the whole lot, uplaoding them to a web gallery took me less than 1 hour.

Well worth the effort. The thought of using a body/lens combination costing over £1.5k and then shooting basic JPEG seems completely pointless.

You've missed my point - I only use JPEG Basic for web-stuff. For stuff I want to print, then I go back to the RAW. I don't really care about the webstuff that much really - as long as it looks good in print - and for that I'll get go to the RAW, because JPEG Basic is no way good enough for, say a 12x10 print.

(not sure if I'm writing this in invisible ink as I'm sure this is the 3rd time I've said I'm using JPEG Basic only for web...)

Radiohead

27-09-2005, 09:26

Regardless, on the basis that web viewing is where a good deal of my work comes from, it needs to look as good as possible, and that's not going to happen using JPEG Basic.

puddleduck

27-09-2005, 09:30

Regardless, on the basis that web viewing is where a good deal of my work comes from, it needs to look as good as possible, and that's not going to happen using JPEG Basic.

I'm not sure what the debate is here? As I've already said 3 times that I know its not optimum but its good enough for me.

Radiohead

27-09-2005, 09:36

Only that you're not making the best of your excellent kit.

puddleduck

27-09-2005, 09:40

Only that you're not making the best of your excellent kit.

Huh? But am I - my prints look great! Got a few blinding prints from Photobox - even framed a couple!

The advantage of RAW + JPEG! - JPEG for a quick re-size and throw onto the web, and the RAWs are still there for a rainy day when / if I decide to get prints. I'm not losing anything shooting this way.

Best of both worlds really (well for a non-post processing inclined person)

Boink!

27-09-2005, 10:06

That's what the idea of RAW + JPEG is about. Like shooting polaroids before committing the 120 film back to the proper exposure (in film terminology).

Radiohead

27-09-2005, 10:12

Brozyniak

27-09-2005, 10:42

That's what the idea of RAW + JPEG is about. Like shooting polaroids before committing the 120 film back to the proper exposure (in film terminology).

I'd like to shoot RAW + JPEG, if only to speed up the weeding down processes when I get back home but I don't have portable storage and CF space is precious.

puddleduck

27-09-2005, 12:19

I'd like to shoot RAW + JPEG, if only to speed up the weeding down processes when I get back home but I don't have portable storage and CF space is precious.

On the D70s with a 2 Gig CF card if I shot RAW only I get about 375 shots, whereas with RAW + JPEG it goes down to about 340-ish. The JPEGs are about 750k on average, compared to around 5.5megs for a typical RAW.

pkr

27-09-2005, 12:22

I did see a site somewhere that put all 4 side by side ( Sigma 10-20, Tokina & Nikon 12-24 & Tamron 11-18 ) but I'll have to try and find it again. The photos were of a row of shops with a Chinese style statue in the foreground.

Found the pics but it just compares the 2 Sigmas and the Tamron. Not the Tokina or Nikon.

http://www.pbase.com/cameraguy21773/sigma_1020_samples

puddleduck

27-09-2005, 12:23

Some interesting shots here

http://www.pbase.com/hsandler/nikon_d70_evaluation

Particularly the difference between Fine JPG and RAW, both straight from the camera. The superiority of the RAW shot is startling to my eyes.

I think you are just arguing for the sake tbh - no one is claiming JPEG is as good as RAW, and JPEG Basic is worse again. I can see this very easily by doing a RAW->JPEG myself - WHICH IS WHY I DON'T USE JPEG BASICS FOR PRINT.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to prove here? Ulimately you do need to convert to JPG anyway for web or print, so apart from an academic exercise what is this telling us we don't already know? I love it if online printers such as Photobox could handle RAW but its pretty much JPEG or nowt at the moment.

Found the pics but it just compares the 2 Sigmas and the Tamron. Not the Tokina or Nikon.

http://www.pbase.com/cameraguy21773/sigma_1020_samples

Some guys on Nikonians (http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID17/1802.html) are doing a test with all 4 I think, and it should be ready any day now. I'm holding off until I see this I think.

Radiohead

27-09-2005, 12:31

No I'm not - I just fail to understand why you're happy with quality less than it could be, simply for the sake of 30 seconds PP.

And for ultimate quality prints you'd use TIFF's, not JPG.

puddleduck

27-09-2005, 12:34

No I'm not - I just fail to understand why you're happy with quality less than it could be, simply for the sake of 30 seconds PP.

And for ultimate quality prints you'd use TIFF's, not JPG.

NEWFLASH! Everybody's different!

Although do agree with you about TIFFs but Photobox don't do them - unfortunate as their prints are head and shoulders above everyone else.

Radiohead

27-09-2005, 12:38

I use Peak Imaging myself anyway - and they're a full-on pro lab. Real quailty stuff.

puddleduck

27-09-2005, 12:41

I don't need a Pro lab - Photobox when they have 20% coupons do it for me!

pkr

27-09-2005, 12:50

Yup, I keep checking back for this 4 way report on Nikonians.

One thing that is interesting, and I hope they address this in their report, is the angle of view for the lenses. The reason is that Tamron quote an AoV of 103.5° at 11mm, while Sigma quote 102.4° at 10mm.

The only way I can explain that difference, the Sigma should have the wider AoV, is that perhaps Sigma's 102.4° is based on a 1.5x sensor and Tamron's 103.5° is based on a 1.6x. Not really important of course, other aspects are of much greater significance, it's just that it struck me as odd.

I'll get my anorak ....

puddleduck

27-09-2005, 12:52

pkr

27-09-2005, 13:25

I see your anorak and raise it :)

Aparently Sigma quote their angles based on the FOV from their own cameras (SD9 / SD10 etc) which are something like 1.7x crop. So I don't think the Tamron and Sigma figures are directly comparable.

Now that would explain it. Thanks. I was on sort of the right track with 1.5x & 1.6x; it didn't occur to me that they would be using their own camera bodies ( obvious really ).