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

[Sean Setters]

As some of you know, I recently purchased a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. The first copy seemed to give fantastic results when you were using the center focus point. However, if you used one of the outer focus points to gain focus, the image would be terribly out of focus. So, I sent that copy back in order to exchange it with another copy.


The second copy arrived yesterday and I immediately started testing it. The second copy did virtually the same thing (although didn't seem to focus quite as well even with the center point). I tried using the Microfocus adjustment on the 50D to dial it in. Using a MF adjustment of +19, I could get the lens to accurately focus using the upper-right (and far right) focus points. However, using the same MF of +19 threw the entire image out of focus when using the center focus point. It's as if each focus point needed its own MF adjustment.


In other words, it was completely useless to me. On paper, it was the perfect lens to round out my collection. In reality, it simply didn't work for me. The one good image I got from it was a self portrait in which I used manual focus. I simply cannot recommend the lens. I've sent back my second copy for a refund of my purchase price, but I'm still out the cost of shipping the lens 3 different times (they shipped it once for free). I considered giving THK a call to find out if there was anything that could be done to remedy the situation, but in the end I decided I wasn't going to trust a company whose product failed so miserably to meet my expectations.


The rep at Roberts Imaging told me he's never had a complaint about this lens from a Canon customer. There's a possibility that I received two lenses from an especially bad batch they had. Else there might have been an adverse and unforeseen affect of the most recent 50D firmware update. Heck, there might even be an odd combination of (seemingly unrelated) camera settings that caused the focusing anomaly to occur. But when it comes down to it, this lens on my 50D didn't work.


Just in case you were curious...

[Dallasphotog]

Good info...

[Colin]

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 bastard. 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.

[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).



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3623/3666476797_585ceacd3f.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/3666476797/)

[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/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/billabong-1022.jpg

[Jarhead5811]

I CANNOT recommend the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
<p style="CLEAR: both"]
<p style="CLEAR: both"]I hate that, I've heard so much good about it but I think I'll stick with Canon from here on out.

[Sean Setters]

I'm hating it too. The view through a wide-angle lens spurned many creative ideas. It was a new way to look at things. I think I'm going to wait for a couple of in-depth reviews of the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5.

[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/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/billabong-1022.jpg
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





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

[Chuck Lee]

Sean,


Sorry to here that it didn't work out. Thanks for posting your conclusions.

[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 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]

[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.

[BES]

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



<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]

[btaylor]

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


Thanks BES. No CPL for this shot. I haven't found a time yet where I've needed one with this lens to be honest. This shot is straight out of the camera with the sun at about 90 degrees to my left. I don't even have a UV filter on it as I'm still debating whether or not it needs it and if it will affect the shots at all. At the moment I'm happy with sticking to the lens hood as I don't really use this as a walkaround lens and most shots I take with it are from a tripod so I'm fairly confident it is safe from damage.


Cheers!

[Colin]

that's some great contrast for not having a polarizer.


what were the camera settings. much post processing?

[btaylor]

Camera setup for that shot were:


40D, 10mm, f/13.0, 1/100sec, Full Manual Mode, can't remember the metering mode unfortunately.


There were no tonal adjustments made in post, just some sharpening in lightroom and that's it I believe. Just a really lovely lens. The vignetting gets a little too much at times but stopping down helps a bit.


You can see some more shots with the same lens on my flickr stream


http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_taylor_au/ ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_taylor_au/)

[BES]

Camera setup for that shot were:


40D, 10mm, f/13.0, 1/100sec, Full Manual Mode, can't remember the metering mode unfortunately.


There were no tonal adjustments made in post, just some sharpening in lightroom and that's it I believe. Just a really lovely lens. The vignetting gets a little too much at times but stopping down helps a bit.


You can see some more shots with the same lens on my flickr stream


http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_taylor_au/ ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_taylor_au/)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Very nice, I checked you gallery on flickr nad I like how this lens handles. So now I am even more confused....I was about to wait out until I can afford both FF and 16-35, but this may just be a nice lens to have. Great job. Thanks for sharing.

[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 [:D] Be sure to post some pictures and your conclusions once you've had time to properly test it.

[Daya]

I too am on the verge of buyingthe CanonEF-S 10-22mm in near future.


I eagerly await Sean's findings.

[Colin]

Very nice, I checked you gallery on flickr nad I like how this lens handles. So now I am even more confused....I was about to wait out until I can afford both FF and 16-35, but this may just be a nice lens to have. Great job. Thanks for sharing.


That's not an awful idea. When you upgrade, you can always sell the 10-22 with your 1.6 camera, or if you don't have to sell, keep it around as the lower bulk alternative for hiking, etc.

[Sean Setters]

I too am on the verge of buyingthe CanonEF-S 10-22mm in near future.


I eagerly await Sean's findings.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



You don't really need to wait for my findings. As long as the thing focuses well, and the picture quality is decent, I'll be happy with it. If you really want the best info on the lens, read Bryan's review ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx). I read it 3 times over (as well as a couple of other reviews) before finally deciding it would be a good choice for me. From what I've read, it's a decently built lens. It focuses fast and accurately. It's basically constructed with"L" glass but lacks the red ring because it's an EF-S lens.


As I was able to buy a refurbished 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 for little more than the price of the Tokina (and less than the cost of the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5), I figured it was the right lens for the right price. The lack of reviews and the 82mm filter size of the Sigma ultimately made my decisionalot easier (I already have several 77mm filters that I can use with the Canon).