[TanjaSchulte]

hello,



i read the canon review of the Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX here on PZ.

it´s mentioned in the text that is has quiet heavy CA´s.



now there is a DX II model of the lense that has improved coating.

i would like to know if this new model has better control of flares and CA´s.



is there a good website that has a review of this new Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX II model?



tia!!

[TanjaSchulte]

sorry wrong button.....

[mst]

Welcome on board, Tanja.



Tokina lenses are known for rather high CA figures. However, CAs are relatively easy to remove in post processing.



The improved coating of the version II model is said to help to reduce flare (another issue of this lens), but probably won't do much about CAs. CAs are (or lack of correction of CAs is) mainly a result of the optical design, the glass elements used.



So, unless they also changed the optical design, I wouldn't expect significantly better CA behaviour from the newer lens.



-- Markus

[Guest]

Run a short flare test with Tokina 12-24 II, Canon EF-S 10-22 and my own Tokina 12-24. I was disappointed with Mk II, because it had about the same amount of flare as it's predecessor and ended up with the Canon. Still missing the touch and feel of the Tokina lens and the 9 segment aperture (rendered spotlights stopped down way better than Canon's 6 blade aperture).



Ciao, Walter

[TanjaSchulte]

ok thank you both.. i guess i will go for the tokina 11-16mm then.

[PuxaVida]

[quote name='TanjaSchulte' timestamp='1294748849' post='5415']

ok thank you both.. i guess i will go for the tokina 11-16mm then.

[/quote]



The 11-16mm also suffers from LaCAs... But it can be corrected in PP. I used it on my D90 and I can say that it is a very good lens for cropped sensor cameras: acceptable geometric distortion, very sharp at corners (@ f/5.6-8 it works like a charm), and it's built like a tank.



Serkan

[Guest]

And be warned: flares aren't any better with this lens. Tokina really has issues with it's coatings.



Ciao, Walter

[TanjaSchulte]

[quote name='Walter Schulz' timestamp='1294751309' post='5417']

And be warned: flares aren't any better with this lens. Tokina really has issues with it's coatings.



[/quote]



and that´s something i don´t really understand.

tokina gets it´s glas from hoya and hoya should have the expertise to do good coatings.

The 11-16mm also suffers from LaCAs...

i read that too.

but everyone says ist has the overall better image quality.



as im going to use the lens on the wide end anyway i will not miss the longer end of the 12-24mm lens.

and ended up with the Canon

i have read many reviews of the canon 10-22mm but i was not very impressed by the border sharpness of the lens.

most reviews say that the tokina 11-16 is quiet a bit shaper then the canon.

[Guest]

[quote name='TanjaSchulte' timestamp='1294764472' post='5425']and that´s something i don´t really understand.

tokina gets it´s glas from hoya and hoya should have the expertise to do good coatings.[/quote]



"Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie, und grün des Lebens goldner Baum.". And so are the flares produced by most Tokina wide angle lenses: green.



[quote name='TanjaSchulte' timestamp='1294764472' post='5425']i read that too.

but everyone says ist has the overall better image quality.[/quote]



If we're talking about image resolution numbers wide open there's no doubt about it. But I'm doing landscape and architecture with a tripod, aperture between 7.1 and 11 most of the time. Therefore I'm using the sweet spot of the lens and resolution numbers in the sweet spot will cause no problem, not even in the test lab. And I'm doing ny own prints up to A3+ and hardly ever feel the urge to examine the corners with a loupe.



[quote name='TanjaSchulte' timestamp='1294764472' post='5425']i have read many reviews of the canon 10-22mm but i was not very impressed by the border sharpness of the lens.

most reviews say that the tokina 11-16 is quiet a bit shaper then the canon.[/quote]



Read the reviews again, compare the numbers stopped down and keep in mind that the eye is a device with limited resolution.





Sometimes I just want to call for a double blind test with prints and I suppose it might look like "Statistics 101" revisited.



Ciao, Walter

[TanjaSchulte]

[quote name='Walter Schulz' timestamp='1294769747' post='5428']

Sometimes I just want to call for a double blind test with prints and I suppose it might look like "Statistics 101" revisited.

[/quote]



i see your point.

and i know that lab numbers are not that important for real world photography.



still most people (including me) want to buy the best they can get for their money even when they don´t notice the difference at all. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



that´s why i spend so much time reading reviews before buying a product.

when i pay a few hundred bucks i want the best for it. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

would be great when i had the time and opportunity to test all lenses myself.

but that´s not possible.



i own a 7D and noticed that i need really good glas to make the best out of the 7D´s 18MP.

so i looked mainly on the resolution, then flare and CA.



but you are right, when flare is a big problem in an image, then the best resolution is not worth much.