Did I get a bad copy?

[elbirth]

For Christmas I got a Tokina 24-200mm after hearing good things about it and seeing some pretty nice shots. I wanted a wide range lens that was somewhat decently priced and performed well enough as a general purpose walk-around lens when I would end up wanting both up close and far away shots without having to swap lenses. I had thought I found it, but I haven't been getting good results from it- almost all of my shots have an extremely soft focus (hand-held, on a tripod, faster shutter speed, with/without flash, everything but a select few shots, and even then, they're not as sharp as I'd like).

Anyway, I contacted B&H (where it was ordered from) and the guy I emailed said it was unlikely I got a lemon (of course, he's supposed to say that, right?) but it IS possible. Of course... anyway, he forwarded my email to Tokina, and after nearly 3 weeks of a couple emails back to him, neither of us have gotten a response out of Tokina. Needless to say, I'm very disappointed in their support and don't know if I'll be buying another Tokina lens. However, I want a good lens!

I got an RMA # from B&H to send it back for a refund or exchange (VERY easy people to work with at B&H, and prompt in responses), so while I find the box and all that the lens came in, I've almost been trying to talk myself out of sending it back just so I have the lens.... kind of dumb, but although I realize it isn't meeting my standard, I hate to deal with having to send it back and all.

Anyway, I took a few test shots, and wanted to share to see if people think this is the quality the lens generally gives, or if it really is just a bad copy... I haven't decided on what I want to do yet, but I think I want a refund and just buy another lens, preferably Canon brand... any suggestions?

Here are my 2 test shots.. the first shot is from my Canon 50mm f/1.8 on manual mode at 1/250 and f/6.3, ISO 200 on a tripod. The second is the Tokina 24-200mm at the same settings, but at 47mm (I wasnt exactly dead on with the zoom when I took the shot, plus my crop of the image isn't exactly the same, but you see the same crucial part in each picture....).

[edsarkiss]

what's your budget? -- for the most part, that determines your 'standard' when it comes to lenses.

if you're after high-quality, an extreme range zoom like the 24-200 isn't going to deliver.

so my advice would be to look for a smaller zoom range, and do some research online to see what lenses people like. the Tamron 28-75 seems to be a favorite here -- good quality and a really good price. i haven't personally used it, but i've heard enough good things about it that i'd seriously consider it if i was looking for something in that range.

if you find you need more length, then there are lots of options in 70-200 zooms. canon makes several that cover lots of price points.

lenses are kind of like people -- you can get an expert in a specific field (prime [e.g Canon 50/1.8]), a well-rounded individual (moderate range zoom [e.g. Tamron 28-70 or Canon 16-35]), or a "jack of all trades, master of none" (extreme range zoom [e.g. Tokina 24-200]). you get to choose who you share your camera bag with ;-)

[Tom W]

I had the same lens - for 1 day. I don't expect perfection out of such a wide-ranging zoom either, but if you can see the softness in smaller images, something is amiss. I gave mine quite a workout when it arrived, and found it to have a very bad backfocus problem. I didn't need any test charts to see that it was consistently focusing well behind the intended target.

Its too bad, as the parts that were in focus were pretty sharp, and this lens would have provided me with a flexible, low-cost lens for times when I don't want to lug a lot of kit around, like if I'm spending 10 hours walking around at Disney. The Tokina gets very good reviews considering its range. Unfortunately, it sounds like QC isn't there.