I CANNOT recommend the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

[Sean Setters]

It's good to know. Sorry. I know you were excited.


I got a second copy of the 135 that still has a backfocus problem. at about 30 feet, the focus is actually 3 feet behind where it should be. Unfortunately, my camera doesn't have micro adjustments for autofocus. It still takes nice pictures, but I had to play with picking focus points to set the autofocus that weren't the points that I wanted in focus (closer to me, pick the bridges of the nose, for example, to get the eyes in focus).


Now, it could be my camera, except that it works with my 35 1.4 and 85 1.2 just fine. when the 24-70 comes back to see if there was anything they could do with the chromatic aberration, I'll send back the 135 with my camera body and ask them to calibrate the ***. Hopefully, they can actually make it work correctly, and it's just a commonadjustment issue as noted in that lens rentals notice that somebody had the goodness of heart to post. Was it Daniel?


Then, there are other lenses, like the 50mm 1.4, that in some instances, regardless of calibration, just can't autofocus accurately, by design. I eventually traded that lens in, even though I liked what it could do in so many other ways. I would have liked to trade it in by hurling it into the back of the head of whoever decided that the 'feature' was acceptable.


I realize that every lens has performance variations, and trade offs are part of design, and I can accept that, but accurate autofocus would seem to be crucial. If I can't get accurate autofocus, it's pretty useless to me, particularly at f/4 and below. It's exceptionally frustrating.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

My 3 other lenses focus fantastically well with absolutely no MF adjustments necessary. Of course, they're all Canon lenses--and the manufacture didn't have to reverse engineer the autofocus mechanisms. I'm a portrait photographer, and I do most of my shooting sans a tripod. Accurate autofocus is an absolute must with me. I was perfectly fine forgiving the rather heavy CA that came with the lens, but I won't put up with mis-focused images. Oh, and my Canon 50mm f/1.4 focuses very well (not to rub it in, but here's a shot I took fairly recently with it).

[btaylor]

That's a bugger mate. Try the Canon 10-22mm. I think it's a bit more expensive than the Tokina but I absolutely love it. Here's a sample pic.


40D, Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 @ 10mm and f/13.0, ISO 100, 1/100sec[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/billabong-1022.jpg[/img]

[BES]

That's a bugger mate. Try the Canon 10-22mm. I think it's a bit more expensive than the Tokina but I absolutely love it. Here's a sample pic.


40D, Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 @ 10mm and f/13.0, ISO 100, 1/100sec[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/billabong-1022.jpg[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Nice! Did you use CP filter with this one? If so, which one?

[Colin]

good call bernata!





Did I spell OK?

[BES]

good call bernata!





Did I spell OK?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Yes, you have some memory on you []

[Sean Setters]

Well, I put more thought into this decision than I've ever put into a lens choice. After the Tokina failed to meet my [reasonable] expectations, I was left considering several other lenses. I poured over every piece of relevant information I could get my hands on. After all the research, I finally came to the conclusion that the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 was the next best option. I don't like variable-aperture zooms, but the image quality is so good on the lens that I might be able to overlook the one glaring caveat.


Tonight I purchased a Refurbished Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 from Adorama. We'll see how it goes... ;-)

[Colin]

I don't like variable-aperture zooms, but the image quality is so good on the lens that I might be able to overlook the one glaring caveat.


Tonight I purchased a Refurbished Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 from Adorama. We'll see how it goes... ;-)
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Good luck sean!


I used to not want a variable aperture zoom, if you think about it, there aren't any constant aperture zooms in the true sense, that I know of. A constant F number, sure, though the F number is a ratio to focal length, and if the focallength changes, that means the aperture changes.


Plus, you can always just set the thing to 4.5 or higher, and not use the wider apertures at the wider focal lengths, if you want, and USE it like a 'constant aperture' lens.


I wish my 70-200 f2.8 could do variable aperture, and pull 100mm @ f1.4.... that'd be cool. Same thing with the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 would be much cooler as a 100-400 f1.4-5.6....


Probably a good technical reason why that's difficult.... but... anyway.

[Mark Elberson]

Tonight I purchased a Refurbished Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 from Adorama. We'll see how it goes... ;-)
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I hope you are as happy with it as the rest of us are [] Be sure to post some pictures and your conclusions once you've had time to properly test it.

[Colin]

I only remembered your name correctly because I was so embarassed remembering it incorrectly previously [] Well, that and your husband is a fellow audio nut, so I feel like I can identify [:P]

[BES]

I only remembered your name correctly because I was so embarassed remembering it incorrectly previously [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img] Well, that and your husband is a fellow audio nut, so I feel like I can identify [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Colin


[] you are funny....and we are practically neighbours... if I recall. I am in Nor Cal as well, South Bay. I envy you Santa Cruiz Moutains [ip]