First shots with new lens....

[Liz]

After a rainy week with the Tokina 12-24 still in the box, the sun finally came out. I had a couple of hours this afternoon to try it out. The sun was still a bit too bright, but it did okay.

I do like it; however, I'm still not sure it's wide enough......I keep thinking of the 10-22 Sigma (can't afford the Canon).....any thoughts/input on this?

Liz











crop





crop







(close up of latch) not a crop

[rylan]

looks great!

[jgredline]

Your images look great as always. I especially like the bike rack series. The only thing wrong with it, Is that I did not think of it first

I just bought the Sigma 10-20 F/4 and so far I am happy. At 10 it behaves more like a fish eye.

[mjs1973]

Hey Liz,

Glad you finally got to try out the lens.

When I bought mine, I didn't do the research I normally do, so I wasn't aware that Sigma had a 10-20mm lens. I realized it after I got the Tokina. Ever since, I have always wondered what I'm missing without those extra 2mm. On most lenses, it wouldn't be an issue, but 2mm on an ultra wide can be a huge difference. I thought about sending back the Tokina and getting the Sigma, but the constant aperture, build quality, and great reviews convinced me to keep the Tokina. I don't regret the choice I made at all.

[Liz]

Your images look great as always. I especially like the bike rack series. The only thing wrong with it, Is that I did not think of it first

I just bought the Sigma 10-20 F/4 and so far I am happy. At 10 it behaves more like a fish eye.

Javier,
Thanks for the kind words. I go to Ridgewood (NJ) with my camera quite often when I don't have a lot of time to look for someplace more interesting. It's a small suburbia town about 20 minutes away from where I live. It has more photo ops - the bikes are parked near the RR tracks.

I hope you'll post some Sigma samples....I look forward to seeing what that lens can do.







Liz

[Liz]

Hey Liz,

Glad you finally got to try out the lens.

When I bought mine, I didn't do the research I normally do, so I wasn't aware that Sigma had a 10-20mm lens. I realized it after I got the Tokina. Ever since, I have always wondered what I'm missing without those extra 2mm. On most lenses, it wouldn't be an issue, but 2mm on an ultra wide can be a huge difference. I thought about sending back the Tokina and getting the Sigma, but the constant aperture, build quality, and great reviews convinced me to keep the Tokina. I don't regret the choice I made at all.

I agree the Tokina is a nice lens. I'm happy with the IQ, build - and especially the constant aperture. I don't know whether I want to give that last one up! It's that 2mm thought that keeps hanging around my head.

Thank you for your comments.......I appreciate the input......btw, your images on the wide angle thread are excellent.

Liz

[Old Timer]

I think Mike hit the nail on the head with his statement about build quality and constant aperture. This lens is hard to beat. I've had two Sigmas in the last few years and not really pleased with either from a build stand point. As for that other 2mm, unless you want to go to a true fish-eye I think that the 12mm will cover 95 percent of everything else I need a wide to do. Your images for the first day out are great. I couldn't help but notice the great DOF in the first three, beautiful. and garbage can through the latch is wonderful. Very nice first trip out Liz, and it didn't break your back did it.

[another view]

I do like it; however, I'm still not sure it's wide enough......I keep thinking of the 10-22 Sigma (can't afford the Canon).....any thoughts/input on this?

Nice shots, Liz! 12mm is crazy wide. Not long ago a 20mm lens on a 35mm film camera was about as wide as anyone got unless they were looking for special effects. Your 12mm lens is actually wider than this in angle of view. Also, the perspective distortion does not change with the type of camera used, so a 12mm lens is a 12mm lens, etc. The perspective distortion you can get with a 12 is just crazy. I'm not talking about "bad" distortion; this is the kind that makes something close to the camera look huge and something slightly farther away look like it's in the next county. Have someone hold their hand straight out in front of them, and put their hand about 1' from the camera. It looks like their arm is about 20' long. Now imagine using this "effect" in a field of wildflowers.

Sure, 10mm is wider and I do use it - but the wider the lens, the tougher it is to get a decent photograph from it.

[Liz]

I think Mike hit the nail on the head with his statement about build quality and constant aperture. This lens is hard to beat. I've had two Sigmas in the last few years and not really pleased with either from a build stand point. As for that other 2mm, unless you want to go to a true fish-eye I think that the 12mm will cover 95 percent of everything else I need a wide to do. Your images for the first day out are great. I couldn't help but notice the great DOF in the first three, beautiful. and garbage can through the latch is wonderful. Very nice first trip out Liz, and it didn't break your back did it.

Larry,
You reminded me of a Sigma 20mmf/1.8 I purchased a long time ago which I returned almost immediately because I didn't like the "feel" of the "rough" exterior of the lens. Funny how some things bother you!

At any rate, I don't want a fish-eye, and I was pleased with the images. You're right about the build - and that constant F4 is just awesome. I don't think I could give that up.

About the garbage can. I was amazed at the results to be honest. It was very dark inside there - no light except for that one stream of sun you see. Actually when I looked at it closely on the monitor, it was very sharp. That surprised me. Too bad it's a garbage can.

Thanks Larry....between you, Mike and Steve.....I made my decision and feel much better about it. It's a keeper.

Liz

[Liz]

Nice shots, Liz! 12mm is crazy wide. Not long ago a 20mm lens on a 35mm film camera was about as wide as anyone got unless they were looking for special effects. Your 12mm lens is actually wider than this in angle of view. Also, the perspective distortion does not change with the type of camera used, so a 12mm lens is a 12mm lens, etc. The perspective distortion you can get with a 12 is just crazy. I'm not talking about "bad" distortion; this is the kind that makes something close to the camera look huge and something slightly farther away look like it's in the next county. Have someone hold their hand straight out in front of them, and put their hand about 1' from the camera. It looks like their arm is about 20' long. Now imagine using this "effect" in a field of wildflowers.

Sure, 10mm is wider and I do use it - but the wider the lens, the tougher it is to get a decent photograph from it.

Steve,
You have been an immense help to me while I've been in the process of making this decision. It's a lot of money for me even though it's set aside from the sale of my heavier lenses, so I really wanted to be 100% peaceful with the purchase.

Thanks for explaining the distortion perspective. After seeing Layne's work, I tried using this method with a magnolia tree yesterday, but it was too windy and I couldn't get a sharp flower due to movement. I'm went back to his website yesterday - and bookmarked it. It is really inspiring and I found so many creative ideas that encouraged me.

I've also given the 10mm perspective more thought after reading these posts this morning, and I probably would be less happy with more distortion. Sometimes I get discouraged if I don't get exactly what I want right then and there (like with the flower I was trying to get to pose for me).

I'm going to keep the Tokina.

Thank you.
Liz

[jgredline]

Sure, 10mm is wider and I do use it - but the wider the lens, the tougher it is to get a decent photograph from it.

YES!, This is exactly what I have found so far. At 12mm it behaves pretty normal, very sharp, very fast focusing, but at 10mm, It is a fish eye in disguise, which Is cool for landscapes and such.

[Photo-John]

Liz-
I have similarly mixed feelings about the Tokina. While I think it's a great lens, I really do miss that extra 2mm the Canon has to offer. But so far I haven't felt like I can't deal with the difference - I just miss it.

Here are a couple of new options that I learned of at PMA this year:

Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX Lens - a 11-16mm f/2.8!

Tamron SP AF10-24MM F/3.5-4.5 DI II LD

It's the new Tokina that I covet! 11mm and a fixed f/2.8 aperture! But I wonder if I'd still miss that extra one millimeter?

[Liz]

Liz-
I have similarly mixed feelings about the Tokina. While I think it's a great lens, I really do miss that extra 2mm the Canon has to offer. But so far I haven't felt like I can't deal with the difference - I just miss it.

Here are a couple of new options that I learned of at PMA this year:

Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX Lens - a 11-16mm f/2.8!

SP AF10-24MM F/3.5-4.5 DI II LD

It's the new Tokina that I covet! 11mm and a fixed f/2.8 aperture! But I wonder if I'd still miss that extra one millimeter?

That Tokina looks like the BIG Winner! I googled the lens for price and found prices ranging from $800-950 US. If that's the case I'll pass. I could handle $600 - no more.

Thanks for adding confusion to my life!

Liz

[Photo-John]

Thanks for adding confusion to my life!

That's my job!

[retroactiv]

Looks like a very sharp lens, I hope that you have more time to use it.

[Liz]

That's my job!

Hmmmm.....Adorama is taking pre-orders although it's not coming out until June. The cost is $569. That is within my budget - I have $600 in my photography budget from selling my other equipment.

http://www.adorama.com/TN1116EOS.html

I have to make the decision today in order to return the 12-24. That 2.8 aperture is very very tempting! Minimum focus 11.8 same, weight, size, etc. is the same.

Liz

[Liz]

I did more research today on the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8 and found a Ken Rockwell Review if anyone is interested. Looks like a fine lens.......too!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

Liz

[gahspidy]

Lovely shots, Liz. Nice contrast and clarity.
Another solution for ya would be to just get a full frame sensor . . . :wink5:

[Liz]

Lovely shots, Liz. Nice contrast and clarity.
Another solution for ya would be to just get a full frame sensor . . . :wink5:

Thanks for the kind words.......well, full frame wouldn't work for me right now due to the weight. One reason I went for the XTi is the weight. :-)

Actually, I couldn't decide whether to keep the 12-24 or not due to the new Tokina 11-16mmf/2.8 that is coming out in June. PJ posted a link to the KenRockwell review. After reading the review a few times I decided to return the 12-24 and wait for the 11-16. The extra 1mm is good - enough of a difference with ultra wide. And Ken gives this lens a huge recommendation! The constant 2.8 was what put me over the edge.

Oh.....the price is good too - $69 more than the 12-24 which is tweaking the budget a bit - we'll see if it's worth it. Otherwise, I'll definitely go back to the 12-24 as it's an awesome lens.

Here is the review if anyone is interested. I think I posted it once before.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

Liz

[Old Timer]

Actually, I couldn't decide whether to keep the 12-24 or not due to the new Tokina 11-16mmf/2.8 that is coming out in June. PJ posted a link to the KenRockwell review. After reading the review a few times I decided to return the 12-24 and wait for the 11-16. The extra 1mm is good - enough of a difference with ultra wide. And Ken gives this lens a huge recommendation! The constant 2.8 was what put me over the edge.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm

Liz

First I have heard of this lens. I guess I missed something along the road. But I'm not going to have buyers remorse now. I am pleased with the 12-24 and I'll stick with it for a few years. That f2.8 would have been worth the extra money to me if I'd have known about it though.

[jgredline]

Javier,
Thanks for the kind words. I go to Ridgewood (NJ) with my camera quite often when I don't have a lot of time to look for someplace more interesting. It's a small suburbia town about 20 minutes away from where I live. It has more photo ops - the bikes are parked near the RR tracks.

I hope you'll post some Sigma samples....I look forward to seeing what that lens can do.

Liz

Thanks Liz.
This is the Sigma 10-20 F/4

[Liz]

Javier,

Wow! Those are awesome images. The color is outstanding! There doesn't seem to be a lot of distortion. Did you "fix" any distortion - or is the lens that good straight from camera?

Also, did you do any post-processing - are these jpg?

These are all beautiful - but my favorite is the first one. The flowers are sooooo gorgeous!

Thanks!

Liz

[jgredline]

Liz,
They are straight out of the box J pegs.
This lens has a huge ''cult following'' in the Pentax world. In some images there is quite a bit of distortion at 10mm but at 12-20 is pretty good. The camera also has a Bright / vivid mode that I use to shoot wildlife and landscape hence the nice rich colors.Thanks for the kind words.

[Liz]

First I have heard of this lens. I guess I missed something along the road. But I'm not going to have buyers remorse now. I am pleased with the 12-24 and I'll stick with it for a few years. That f2.8 would have been worth the extra money to me if I'd have known about it though.

If PJ hadn't posted the information, I would have missed it too. I wouldn't have sent back the 12-24 - and probably be happy! I just sent it back today and miss it already. Yes, the f2.8 is the kicker......but waiting until June will be a challenge since I've gotten a taste of the ultra-wide "angle" of life.

Liz