DSLRUsers.com

... Obsolete ...

What exactly was the criticism ?

Are you shooting on a tripod ?

I've got the 10-20 Sigma and have been very happy with it.

this calls for a 100% crop comparison...

FWIW the tokina is generally regarded as ALMOST AS GOOD AS the nikon 12-24. you may have a bad copy or there may be some user error involved, i would not think pumping the iso from 200 to 400 would introduce much noise, unless you are significantly underexposing.

it may be worth considering that the 12-24 has a constan t aperature, but is not razor sharp 18mm-24mm.

the 10-20mm is supposedly sharper at 18-20mm.

and again, fwiw, here is a link to what i considered a reasonably in depth analysis of the four dx wide angle offerings from nikon, sigma, tokina and tamron.

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources ... index.html

... Obsolete ...

Adam is it possible to post a photo up, or a link to one if they are all 3-4mb, so we can take a look at the final product, it may help diagnose the problem.

Are you shooting images with high dynamic range ? What sort of meterings are you using ? Inside shots are sometimes tricky because of the clash between internal lighting and natural light from windows, doors etc

Also if you are on a tripod, then I'd personally be shooting ISO 200 all the time. The only time this would possible change is if I was using flash to supplement the internal lighting.. and still I'd try to avoid it if you think noise or quality is an issue. (which sounds like you do).

... Obsolete ...

this came up in a different thread...

what sort of exposures are you pushing? if slower than 1/10...

how good is your tripod... how heavy is your tripod...

is the mirror up (if possible)...



ultimately you will want a heavy, sturdy (read: expensive) tripod, and be shooting at round f8 to get a nice sharp photo with good DOF.

What, exactly, was the criticism that you recieved?

The last of these definitely looks soft to me, but there's more to being a good photographer than simply making a photo.

Good PP can add some "punch" which you suggest may be absent. I'm not going to discuss either of those last two concepts, per se, but perhaps lead you down a whole different path.


First of all, consider HDR; shoot a couple of images in each position; varying your exposure to address the extremes that you're seeing.

Next .... forget about using a wide angle lens; especially a zoom. While your scepticism regarding the Nikkor zoom, btw, is ill-placed. But I digress.

Instead, consider using a wide-ish prime, portrait orientation, and a good pano head with good pano technique.

This way you're using great glass, and producing a much higher resolution image for your clients.

... Obsolete ...

I've had the Tokina 12-24 for a couple of months now and so far I've been quite disappointed as well.

Generally, the images are lacking "punch" ... pretty much sums up my feelings about its sharpness as well.

Maybe it's just me being spoilt by the super-sharp images coming from my 70-200VR, but I haven't being disappointed with the sharpness of the wide images from my 18-70mm (then again, I haven't used the 18-70 much since the 12-24 and 70-200 came along).

I guess I just need to stop procrastinating and do a proper comparison of the 12-24 and 18-70.

Ben

Adam, this was taken with a Tokina 12-24 (at 24mm) on a D200, 1/30 sec, hand held, f4, ISO200.

Even though it's hand held and wide open, I think it's a little sharper than some of your images. I put this up as it's a similar perspective to your last image. I find my Tokina very very sharp. maybe you have a bad copy. Have you tried it on a diferent body? What about other lenses on your d70? The D200 probably does a little better than the D70 with it's focussing.




Cheers
John

Adam,

looking at your DOF with the lens set to f4, I think that is a problem there in terms of sharpness. Look at http://www.dofmaster.com/

At 12mm, f4, if you focus at 2m, you are looking at everything in focus from about .95m to infinity. If you set your focus to infinity, the closest is about 1.8m to infinity. Certainly the closest objects are potentially not going to be in focus if they are close.

As you said, you thought you had an aperture of 6.3, I think would have gotten better results with a smaller aperture.

I have the Tokina and I find it extremely sharp but it is rare that I would use it at anything less then f7, usually more around f11 to f16 for my landscapes.

Cheers,

André

VK4CP wrote:I'm appreciating your input here, Craig & James.

Exposures are 12mm, 1/125", f4, multi-pattern metering, front curtain flash.
I trigger two off-camera SB800s using the inbuilt flash in Commander TTL mode. One SB800 hand-held directly above lens, and another placed in what is hopefully an appropriate position for fill.

I thought I had wound my aperture down to f6.3, but obviously not.

The tripod is quite substantial, a Benro A327 with KB2 head... something you wouldn't want to carry on a hiking trip! (My kit is in my auto-sig)

stop your aperature way down, obviously slow the shutter, and see how much sharper the photos are.

i also concur with gary's suggestions. HDR is certainly an option. you may not want to go down the path of purchasing more lesnses, just yet (not all hope is lost), but garys comment re a widish prime is also a good idea.

i would first shoot at f8, and perhaps impliment some HDR (bracketing your shots).

if that doesn't suffice consider lens choice.

and FTR, the Nikkor 12-24 is an excellent lens, much better than any other of the availible offerings. It's only downside is its prohibitively expensive cost, considering a f4 max ap.

jamesw wrote:stop your aperature way down, obviously slow the shutter, and see how much sharper the photos are.

Why slow the shutter down?

If he's using flash, it's the flash + aperture that will make the exposure, and the primary use of the shutter is simply for sync.

By all means, I'd consider slowing the shutter and adding available light to the image, but that's a different ball game again.

I'd also go experimenting with the lens, playing with both its hyperfocal distance, as well as shooting some test exposures in order to locate the sweetest aperture/focal length combo for the setup.

And one thing that I think is probably disturbing is Adam's admission that he "thought" he'd shot at f/6.3, but then found he'd shot at f/4. Couple that with shooting at ISO400 when he thought he'd bene shooting at 200, and we do have a couple of serious areas that need to be addressed within the realm of "self".

I'm not trying to be harsh, or to pick on Adam .... but I think this may help to serve as a good lesson that we all need to keep in the back of minds: never, ever, take these sorts of things for granted. ALWAYS take a few moments to check, and double check your settings, and to make sure that you're using the settings that you do, in fact, want to use.

Fortunately, we're talking about photography, and the worst that could happen is that we screw up some images: how would you feel if your surgeon, about to operate on your left leg, didn't double check what your problem was?

... Obsolete ...

VK4CP wrote:Johnd, that is a much sharper image... you can see that in the oven door reflections - thanks for posting.

gstark wrote:...Couple that with shooting at ISO400 when he thought he'd bene shooting at 200...

Gary, I was deliberately shooting ISO400...

My apologies.

Being a fan of "House" (8:30pm Ch10) makes you appreciate the fact that others have bigger (and legitimate) problems than the ones we can face!

Surely you mean that, if you want to gain an appreciation for the real problems that people face, Big Brother is the appropriate, reputable source?

Ohh, and for the record, I wasn't doubting the quality of the Nikkor 12-24, I just don't blindly accept that OEM offers the best bang-for-buck.

Bang for buck is a different ballgame entirely.

gstark wrote:

jamesw wrote:stop your aperature way down, obviously slow the shutter, and see how much sharper the photos are.

Why slow the shutter down?

If he's using flash, it's the flash + aperture that will make the exposure, and the primary use of the shutter is simply for sync.

By all means, I'd consider slowing the shutter and adding available light to the image, but that's a different ball game again.

i didnt delve into it too far but....

stop aperature down... you will be limited by the power your flashes are going to provide... sb800s arent ridiculously powerful... so you are going to have to substitute some flash with ambient... hence slowing shutter...

if you can get the sb800 to provide enough power for adequate exposure at f8 then by all means don't worry about slowing the shutter. (recycle time may be another issue that you are thinking about in choosing to use a combination of amient + flash instead of all flash.)

if you are on a reasonable tripod slowing the shutter speed down a bit should not bee too big a deal anyways...

i think the main issue here was really the aperature being shot at.

gstark wrote:

VK4CP wrote:Ohh, and for the record, I wasn't doubting the quality of the Nikkor 12-24, I just don't blindly accept that OEM offers the best bang-for-buck.

Bang for buck is a different ballgame entirely.

yesssum, bang for buck is another ballgame to out and out stellar IQ.

if you want the best, the nikkor 12-24 is hard to go past.

if you don't want to pay that much, i believe there are compromises to be had. there are some nasty signs of CA (purple fringing) in john's shot around the lights...

Looking throught these shots my first thought is... exposure etc settings aren't right... easily recognised by one who's done plenty of the same !!!

I'd doubt that the glass is the real issue... plenty of examples around of perfectly satisfactory results with this and all of the other zooms in this category.... so I'd recommend stopping the lens down, lotsa bracketing to give you the opportunity to PP blend and practice practice practice, which should be easy with this sort of photography.

Hi Guys,

I tested all the main wide-angles in that range for a magazine story a couple of years ago... the main reason for doing this had a lot to do with me wanting to buy one and I wanted to buy the best I could at the time!

Anyway, the Tokina was a lot better than Nikon wide open (at f4) and was easily able to match on the smaller apertures too (and at all focal lengths). The Sigma was also a lot better than the Nikon. It would be easy to say it was the one lense that was good or bad however I tested two different Nikon 12-24s against two different Tokinas and achieved the same results both times.

Testing was done in controlled conditions with a 7kg tripod.

I am confident in saying it is a choice between the Tokina and the Sigma. If you are putting it on the Canon then go the Sigma for the benefit of the HSM AF motor. If it is on the Nikon than the Tokina would be the way to go.... constant aperture.

I had a Nikon 12-24 for about 18months and had to try hard to get good sharp shots. I work on the principle of 'blame the lens and never the photographer,' especially when the photographer is me.

I eventually traded it for a second hand 17-55 and was blown away with how sharp the 17-55 was between 17 and 24 compared to my ex Nikon 12-24. Sure I may have had a poor copy of the 12-24 but the difference was amazing.

I have read many posts that suggest the Nik12-24 is sharp between 17-24 and falls off a bit wider. It makes you wonder if these wider lenses are a bit soft on the super wide end why we have them at all. I have just ordered a Sigma 10-20 to try my luck again in the wide world. When it is all said and done I think I would love a 12mm fixed focal widey to compliment my 17-55 instead of having a 12-24 that overlaps on half the range and when it is really needed at the wide end is a bit of a softy.

These are my own humble opinions based on a sample size of one therefore they should be taken seriously.