A&P Tokina 12-24 f/4.... anyone notice this being soft?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Wobistdu, Aug 12, 2009.

  1. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    It seems wide open at 12mm, the pics are kind of shitty. They seem very soft.

    My 55-200 $225 nikon vr lens is much sharper throughout. Bad copy?
     
  2. Bob Loblaw

    Bob Loblaw Guest

    we told you go to get the 11-16 :uh:
     
  3. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    no i refuse to spend $600 on a non-nikon

    $400 was border line too much
     
  4. wrong1

    wrong1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    socal
    $600 worth of win, or $400 worth of fail.... should have saved up for another month
     
  5. asdfbunk

    asdfbunk A Member OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    29,805
    Likes Received:
    7
    :rofl: and that's why you ended up with a soft lens

    the 11-16 is sharper, wider, and has a larger aperture.
    well worth $200 IMO
     
  6. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    :ugh:

    sharper huh? funny considering every review says the tokina is "supposedly" very close to the nikon 12-24 that is $930
     
  7. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    hmmm looking at some 11-16 pics, they seem right on par with my 12-24's

    oh well guess it's just a wide angle lens i have to get used to
     
  8. asdfbunk

    asdfbunk A Member OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    29,805
    Likes Received:
    7
    you mean the nikon 14-24? don't say that to girth :mamoru:
     
  9. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest


    yeah. for $530 less, the performance is supposedly pretty damn close

    even elitist rockwell loves it
     
  10. Bob Loblaw

    Bob Loblaw Guest

    :ugh::rofl:
     
  11. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    why do you sackride that lens so hard?
     
  12. GlobeGuy

    GlobeGuy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,974
    Likes Received:
    0
    I received my 11-16 yesterday. Fucker is sharp as shit. Hard believe that a UWA at 2.8 can be that sharp.
     
  13. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    nice, glad you like it :bigthumb:

    i really couldnt see myself shooting 2.8 with a wide angle. hell i dont even shoot under f/8 half the time with it
     
  14. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    my 11-16 is fucking razor sharp.

    I'm not sure what review's you're reading, but even your buddy Rockwell agrees that the 11-16mm smashes the fuck outta the 12-24.

    And really, who gives a fuck what company makes the lens, as long as it performs the way it's supposed to.

    Enjoy your soft pics!

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    :rofl: thanks elitist douchebag :ugh:
     
  16. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

  17. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

  18. GlobeGuy

    GlobeGuy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,974
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are they 100% crop or sized down? We can't judge the sharpness accurately if it's latter.
     
  19. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    ummmm

    i think both are trimmed like 5%
     
  20. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

  21. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    You said they were soft, not me you prick. I was just agreeing with you.

    How the fuck can I be elitist when i'm using a Tokina too?? :rofl:


    Seriously though. You're a dick. Keep up the name calling.
     
  22. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    agree
     
  23. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    Comparing a telephoto lens with little curvature to a UWA that relies on curvature is stupid.

    The 12-24 is a little soft, but it still produces great photos. Great colors, distortion isn't as bad as it could be for a UWA, and great build. I agree that the 11-16 is a much better lens, but the 12-24 can't be beat for the price.

    What you'll need to realize is that if you don't have enough light or have light falloff, you'll get what appears to be a soft photo. You may have a bad copy, that's always a possibility, but i'd be more apt to blame it on your lack of skill than anything.
     
  24. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest


    sorry none of your comments were ignorant at all. my bad
     
  25. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    yeah i gotta shoot with it more. buildings and structures seem ok. people and colors sometimes are soft

    perhaps i need to stay above 14mm and above 5.6.
     

Share This Page