Need some input and help!

[Liz]

I just exchanged a Tokina 12-24 for a Canon 10-22 for the extra 2mm. I got the Canon today and tried it out this afternoon. It seems to me the images are a bit soft, especially when I crop them. The Tokina is a very sharp lens and to my eyes, the images have more clarity than ones from the Canon. These are from the Canon - except the last 2 are from the Tokina, the 2nd one being a crop of the first - just to compare.

I'd love to get some input - what others here see. I'm getting to the point where I can't see the woods for the trees. The Canon is $200 more, so I really need to make a rational decision. Although I like the extra 2mm, IQ is more important to me.

Liz

Canon 10-22


Canon


Crop of the above


Tokina


Tokina Crop

[Greg McCary]

They look ok to me, maybe a little sharpening. Could you post a side by side of the same subject with both lenses?

[Liz]

They look ok to me, maybe a little sharpening. Could you post a side by side of the same subject with both lenses?

Greg,
I have a couple that I could do this with - the railroad and the park. However, I can't figure out how to post side by side.

Thanks.
Liz

[Frog]

I have to agree the canon lens ones look a bit soft. Only thing I see sharp is the immediate foreground bricks in the first shot.
I've heard good stuff about the canon 10-22 but don't pay too much attention since I'm a Nikon guy.

[Liz]

I have to agree the canon lens ones look a bit soft. Only thing I see sharp is the immediate foreground bricks in the first shot.
I've heard good stuff about the canon 10-22 but don't pay too much attention since I'm a Nikon guy.

Yes, it has a good reputation. I have little time for photography and don't enjoy the computer part - post processing so I try to do as little as possible so I have more time to play with the camera. The images from the Tokina are sharper straight out of camera. I did try sharpening the Canon images, but couldn't see that much of a difference.

Having said that, this was the first time I tried the Canon. Also, it was mid-afternoon so I was working with a cloudy but very bright sky.

Thanks for your input.

Liz

[gahspidy]

Liz, from the images I see here the Tokina certainly seems to have more pop and clarity but I feel it is not a fair comparison because the settings were most likely different as well as the light conditions and other factors. I was trying to examine the exif info for the images but they were excluded in the web images. If the lenses were shot at different apertures settings and different focal lengths, that will be a factor. You would want to walk around with both lenses and shoot the same subjects with them under the same conditions to really get an accurate idea of what looks better for you.
I had read a in depth review shootout between the 17-40 and the 16- 35 Canon wide angles. The 16-35 being the much more expensive lens was actually softer in the wide angle setting than the 17-40 which was very sharp from about 17mm to 22mm or so. The 17-40 began to get soft when zoomed to it's fullest while the 16-35 became sharper in that range.Every lens will have it's sweet spots and it could just be you hit that with the Tokina that day and not with the Canon.

[Liz]

Liz, from the images I see here the Tokina certainly seems to have more pop and clarity but I feel it is not a fair comparison because the settings were most likely different as well as the light conditions and other factors. I was trying to examine the exif info for the images but they were excluded in the web images. If the lenses were shot at different apertures settings and different focal lengths, that will be a factor. You would want to walk around with both lenses and shoot the same subjects with them under the same conditions to really get an accurate idea of what looks better for you.
I had read a in depth review shootout between the 17-40 and the 16- 35 Canon wide angles. The 16-35 being the much more expensive lens was actually softer in the wide angle setting than the 17-40 which was very sharp from about 17mm to 22mm or so. The 17-40 began to get soft when zoomed to it's fullest while the 16-35 became sharper in that range.Every lens will have it's sweet spots and it could just be you hit that with the Tokina that day and not with the Canon.

Gary,
Thanks for taking the time to check these out, and especially for this information and your input. I checked the Exif on all of them (including ones I didn't post), and the widest focal lengths were Canon 10mm vs Tokina 12. The apertures were close enough - all between f/11 and f/13. I exchanged the Tokina for the Canon so don't have the option of both together although they were shot in the same areas which certainly isn't a fair comparison either. The time of day was about the same, but the sky was brighter with the Canon

Today I did another round of shots in the same area/subjects I used with the Tokina. I wanted to compare the lenses both at 12mm. Although it's not an accurate comparison, all the images done with the Canon have less DOF, less clarity and were soft. I'm wondering if it is front focusing a bit. I'm poor at diagnosing problems, but I couldn't get one really sharp image, except for a few that I shot at about 9" - 12" and even they weren't tack sharp. Maybe I went around the sweet spot both times I had little time to play around with the settings unfortunately. It could be the fact that this is my first time using an UWA; however, even the ones I shot right out of the box on Auto with the Tokina were mostly very sharp.

BTW, I owned the 17-40L lens along with the 24-105L, but had to sell them due to the weight. The Canon 10-22 is very light and the Tokina is okay at a few ounces heavier. The 17-40 was the sharpest lens I owned. I loved that lens and had a hard time selling both of these lenses.

Again, thanks. Your post has been very helpful.

Liz

[Liz]

Final Decision......

After viewing all the images once more from both the Canon and the Tokina, I decided to return the Canon and get the Tokina (again). Most of the Tokina images were sharp, even the ones I shot the first day right out of the box, no post processing. I didn't get any really sharp images with the Canon. I've concluded it's either my copy - or it's me. There may be some front focusing going on, but I'm not sure. The Canon is a great lens with excellent reviews and a very popular UWA lens.

At any rate, I was happy with the Tokina - just wanted those extra 2mm. Since I paid $200 more for the Canon, I decided it wasn't worth any more time trying to figure out what the problem was. I got the 2mm out of my system - and I'll be happy with my original decision!

Thanks for all of your input.

Liz