02-24-2011, 08:00 PM
First of all, sorry for all the questions I've been posting lately. I'm trying to come to a solid understanding of the various lens-resources out there.
I've been looking into the Tokina 11-16mm, and I noticed that Photozone's review had very different results from Lenstip's review in certain key areas.
Namely, Photozone states that the tokina has excellent border and edge performance...at all focal lengths...even at max aperture.
Whereas, Lenstip states that the border performance is fairly dismal throughout the range at max aperture. 16mm isn't even "usable" by their terms until F8. 11mm and 13.5mm become usable for them at F4.0.
They state that the unusable range for this particular test is below 30 lpmm, and here's their "border performance" chart:
![[Image: 2583_tok_res_e.jpg]](http://www.lenstip.com/upload3/2583_tok_res_e.jpg)
(sidenote: they did give the lens high marks in center performance)
Photozone on the other hand is much more optimistic:
![[Image: mtf.gif]](http://www.opticallimits.com/images/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1116_28_canon/mtf.gif)
Why the apparent contradiction? Is there a difference in testing that accounts for this? Is it just sample variation?
More importantly, who should I believe?
I've been looking into the Tokina 11-16mm, and I noticed that Photozone's review had very different results from Lenstip's review in certain key areas.
Namely, Photozone states that the tokina has excellent border and edge performance...at all focal lengths...even at max aperture.
Whereas, Lenstip states that the border performance is fairly dismal throughout the range at max aperture. 16mm isn't even "usable" by their terms until F8. 11mm and 13.5mm become usable for them at F4.0.
They state that the unusable range for this particular test is below 30 lpmm, and here's their "border performance" chart:
(sidenote: they did give the lens high marks in center performance)
Photozone on the other hand is much more optimistic:
Why the apparent contradiction? Is there a difference in testing that accounts for this? Is it just sample variation?
More importantly, who should I believe?