Tokina AT-X 16-28mm F2.8

[garys1]

Now available at B&H...

[agphotography]

Finally! I am tempted to get one of these.

[agphotography]

Looks pretty darn good to me! How do you like it so far??

[garys1]

So far so good. Only complaint so far is the lens cap. Damn thing comes off too easy. Just got back from shooting some Christmas lights. I'll post it later. Lens is about the same size as the 24-70 2.8--maybe a little longer because of the lens hood. It's almost as heavy as the 24-70. Build quality is really good! Now if they can fix that damn cap! BTW B&H is already sold out.

[agphotography]

Sounds like the 15mm fisheye lens cap. It never stays on ever. I was considering selling my old 16-35L and getting this instead. I hear the center and corner sharpness is quite impressive. I've not been unhappy with my 16-35, but never overwhelmed by it either.

[garys1]

As you can see by the first photo, it handles flare pretty well. I was shooting with the sun directly overhead. I zoomed in some of the shots looking for CA but could not see any. I have a feeling this lens may become like the 11-16 for Canon--hard to get. I need to shoot it more but I think, from what I've seen so far, it's outperforming my 17-40. If you use filters on your 16-35, I wouldn't get this lens (There's no threads for one).

[garys1]

Solved the lens cap problem with a $2.00 pipe cap from Home Depot. It covers the entire hood where the factory cap leaves some of the petal openings exposed. Plus the pipe cap has raised notches that "snap" when put on the lens. I'm also waiting for Lee to come out with adapters for the filter holder they designed for the Nikon 12-24.

[agphotography]

As you can see by the first photo, it handles flare pretty well. I was shooting with the sun directly overhead. I zoomed in some of the shots looking for CA but could not see any. I have a feeling this lens may become like the 11-16 for Canon--hard to get. I need to shoot it more but I think, from what I've seen so far, it's outperforming my 17-40. If you use filters on your 16-35, I wouldn't get this lens (There's no threads for one).

Actually your first photo link isn't working properly. Personally I'm not much of a filter user. I have a couple B+W UV filters on 1 or 2 lenses, and I use a variable ND filter for video work, but other than that I do what I can in camera, and the rest in post.

[Marloon]

TEST RESULTS from popphoto...
Distortion: At 16mm, 0.04% (Imperceptible) barrel. At 24mm, 0.02% (Imperceptible) pincushion. At 28mm, 0.02% (Imperceptible) pincushion.

light falloff: At 16mm, none. At 24mm, none. At 28mm, none.

close-focusing Distance: 10.16 inches.

maXimum magnification ratio: At 16mm,1:7.18. At 24mm, 1:4.89. At 28mm, 1:4.25.

WOW. nice specs. I can't wait to get my hands on it.

[panm]

I just got mine, and the front cap is is a joke. What type of pipe cap you got from Home Depot?

Thanks

P.


Solved the lens cap problem with a $2.00 pipe cap from Home Depot. It covers the entire hood where the factory cap leaves some of the petal openings exposed. Plus the pipe cap has raised notches that "snap" when put on the lens. I'm also waiting for Lee to come out with adapters for the filter holder they designed for the Nikon 12-24.

[garys1]

Give any of the cashiers this info and they should be able to find it for you...
barcode sku # is 96942 30035. Product description is 3” Snap End Cap 0332AA

[Marloon]

can you please post 100% crops at f2.8 and pictures of the lens (with it on and off the camera) and your DIY end cap please.

that would be amazing! :D

[agphotography]

Could be my eyes in the morning but that looks a bit soft to me. I mean the overall image looks fantastic, but the 100% (which we can't truly evaluate online) looks kinda soft.

[agphotography]

Argh! It zooms backwards! I hate when lenses are like that lol. What are we, Nikon shooters?

[garys1]

Yeah, it even has the gold ring like the Nikon 14-24 f2.8!

[panm]

garys1: Thanks for the cap info. The home depot cap does not look bad.

I got my copy yesterday, and I agree that at f2.8 it a little soft. However, f4 is better than the 17-40 even stopped down to f11. The tokina also produces warmer colors compared to the canon.

Unfortunately, I got to request an exchange from B&H as my copy gives a lens communication error on half the shots at f/4. Weird thing is all other apertures are fine.

P.

[garys1]

Hmm, never tried it at f4. I'll let you know. Just tried it at different focal lengths...no problems. I hope you get your replacement soon--B&H shows none are available.

[bigcountry]

here are examples from the lens, you can scroll over the image to get the camera/lens info and to see the original.

this is what the final product would look like when giving it to the client:

http://www.holzphotoclient.com/Other/Tokina-16-28mm

[mrfourcows]

how does it fare against the 17-40L?

i'm thinking of upgrading myself (if it is indeed an upgrade).

[Marloon]

gary, can you do more 100% f2.8 crops? Hopefully something with text? I'd really like to assess the sharpness of this UWA.

[agphotography]

I'm still intrigued by this lens. I talked to the guys at lensrentals.com and they only have the nikon version so far, but they said it's really an incredible lens, and they were actually surprised by just how good it is.

When they get the Canon mounts in I'm going to rent one, after side by side testing against my 16-35, if I like it then I think I'll make the switch.

[bohdank]

I was supposed to have one in my possession yesterday but Purolator screwed up the delivery. Now, I'll be picking it up Monday night. Hopefully it turns out to be better than my 17-40, which it sounds like it will be.

[Nietzsche84]

There are some full res sample shots found in here.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/tokina/atx16-28.html&sl=ja&tl=en

[bohdank]

Thanks. Wish there were more f2.8 shots at various focal lengths. Gotta love the color in those shots.

Great translation :-)

[bigcountry]

all of hte ones i posted at the link i posted are at 2.8.

[bohdank]

Missed those. Thanks.

How do you find the lens. Compared to ?

I received mine today but it is going back. Sticky aperture blades at F4, giving me an Err 1.

I can;t give it a good test since I hate the cold ;-)

[bigcountry]

Funny, i got an error 1 on the 1ds iii, but that was the 1st day i had the lens and it has not happened since.

I am really enjoying the lens. I wasn't sold on it photographing water bottles against the 14 L ii, but the 1st wedding i shot it w/ (the photos in the link) and i was sold. So the real world use sold me.

[agphotography]

My question still stands (and probably will until I can test it side by side for myself). I want to know how much better (if at all) this lens is compared to the mkI 16-35L. I have a good copy of that lens and I like it, but it's never been an outstanding lens.

Are center and corner sharpness that good on this Tokina?

[ilumo]

any more opinions on this lens. im selling my tokina 11-16 to get this. hope i get better performance

[bohdank]

My question still stands (and probably will until I can test it side by side for myself). I want to know how much better (if at all) this lens is compared to the mkI 16-35L. I have a good copy of that lens and I like it, but it's never been an outstanding lens.

Are center and corner sharpness that good on this Tokina?

The few shots that I took, I would say the center sharpness at 16mm/f2.8 was excellent. Not quite as good at 28mm. The corners I can't really say, at this time. I was not able to do a valid comparison with my 17-40 before I sent it back to B&H.

[bohdank]

garys1:

Unfortunately, I got to request an exchange from B&H as my copy gives a lens communication error on half the shots at f/4. Weird thing is all other apertures are fine.

P.

I think I got your return ;-). The one I got had the same problem. I sent it back, yesterday.

[garys1]

Mine is still working fine. No communication errors at f4...

[ilumo]

any more shots or news about this lens? :)

[bigcountry]

i am still loving this lens!

[bohdank]

I'm still waiting for my replacement to be shipped.

[panm]

Bohdank:

I wish I had not returned that copy with the sticky f4 aperture. Optically, it was very good, and fixing the aperture should be easy. I got another copy from Canoga camera that has an extremely curved focal plane. I can not get both center and edges in focus for f/2.8-f/8. I am not willing try another copy at this time as most vendors are selling returns. I am sending this copy to Tokina to see if they can fix it.

P.

[bohdank]

Panm..... you got the first one from B&H, right ?

I wonder if the one I got was your return ;-)

The problem seemed to be electrical and not "sticking" blades. I tried with the DOF button... first press and release, aperture closed to f4 but would not open. Second press released the blades.

I should call B&H and ask when they expect to ship me one. If the lens proves to be sharp but has other issues, I'll send it in to Tokina rather than try for a 3rd copy.

[ilumo]

Panm..... you got the first one from B&H, right ?

I wonder if the one I got was your return ;-)

The problem seemed to be electrical and not "sticking" blades. I tried with the DOF button... first press and release, aperture closed to f4 but would not open. Second press released the blades.

I should call B&H and ask when they expect to ship me one. If the lens proves to be sharp but has other issues, I'll send it in to Tokina rather than try for a 3rd copy.

why not just return to B&H if you are in your return period. that way you dont have to fill out your warranty card unless you NEED to. helps your resale value if you ever decide to get a canon 14-24 ;)

[bohdank]

Because I'd like to get a working copy before summer :-)

I don't flip lenses so, if it gets sold down the road, it will be a few years, most likely. I have been curious why a blank warranty card is important. A filled in or not warranty card has no value. Warranty work requires a copy of the original receipt. A warranty card won't get you service.

[ilumo]

Because I'd like to get a working copy before summer :-)

I don't flip lenses so, if it gets sold down the road, it will be a few years, most likely. I have been curious why a blank warranty card is important. A filled in or not warranty card has no value. Warranty work requires a copy of the original receipt. A warranty card won't get you service.

no, but if you fill out the card, im pretty sure that you have to transfer some kind of ownership, or do some kind of registration transfer to the new guy. unless you want the lens repairs to be shipped to your home. I'm sure the new owner won't want that.

[panm]

Panm..... you got the first one from B&H, right ?

I wonder if the one I got was your return ;-)

The problem seemed to be electrical and not "sticking" blades. I tried with the DOF button... first press and release, aperture closed to f4 but would not open. Second press released the blades.

I should call B&H and ask when they expect to ship me one. If the lens proves to be sharp but has other issues, I'll send it in to Tokina rather than try for a 3rd copy.

Yeah, it must be the same copy. I got mine from B&H and had same symptoms. However, I think the problem was mechanical, cause after the first shot (or DOF check) the blades would stay stuck at f/4. After the second shot I would get a lens communication error and the blades would open up.

Optically, that copy was a little soft at 2.8 even at the center. f/4 and above was corner to corner sharp. My second copy, has a very sharp center at 2.8.

Other general observations after using this lens for a couple of weeks:

1) it can flare quite a bit when using back lighting.
2) colors are too warm, like you got a warm filter on. I guess, it could be corrected in post, but I haven't tried yet.
3) compared to primes, it has lower contrast, but again should be correctable in post.

P.

[bohdank]

The flare comment might be a deal breaker for me. I shoot a LOT of concerts and back lighting, in the frame, is often very strong.

[bohdank]

no, but if you fill out the card, im pretty sure that you have to transfer some kind of ownership, or do some kind of registration transfer to the new guy. unless you want the lens repairs to be shipped to your home. I'm sure the new owner won't want that.

I've had a couple of lenses serviced and never filled out the card. I don't think it will be an issue.

[agphotography]

Hmm.. I'm kind of disappointed that there aren't more positive reviews out there (aside from published ones). I was thinking this was going to be a good bet for us Canon users. I've been hoping for a significant improvement in the UWA department.

[bohdank]

There just aren't many out there, yet, I think, and no "real" reviews. I need something faster than my 17-40 and was not going to wait till the reviews were in. The first snippets of personal reviews suggested it was worth looking at. I have little interest in the 16-35MKII since I do not feel I will be gaining enough IQ over the 17-40 although it is f2.8 and it's overpriced for what it offers, imo.

So, either the 16-28 works out or I will stick with my 17-40 and 24L.

[ilumo]

There just aren't many out there, yet, I think, and no "real" reviews. I need something faster than my 17-40 and was not going to wait till the reviews were in. The first snippets of personal reviews suggested it was worth looking at. I have little interest in the 16-35MKII since I do not feel I will be gaining enough IQ over the 17-40 although it is f2.8 and it's overpriced for what it offers, imo.

So, either the 16-28 works out or I will stick with my 17-40 and 24L.

Did you check out Ken Rockwells review? I remember him mentioning that the 16-28 is similar in performance to the 16-35 II... which isn't that encouraging. I thought it was much better.

[bohdank]

I'm not a fan of KR.

[thenextguy]

Get on the ball Canon, 14-24mm now!

[panm]

Did you check out Ken Rockwells review? I remember him mentioning that the 16-28 is similar in performance to the 16-35 II... which isn't that encouraging. I thought it was much better.

I have not tested a 16-35, but both copies of of the 16-28 I have tried are significantly better than the 17-40 I had in terms of sharpness at the wide end on a full frame.

My guess is that there is too much sample variation among all these lenses. So, if someone just tests one copy the review/comparison is worthless. Ideally, you want to order several copies and keep the best.

In general, I am quite impressed with the 16-28 and I will end up keeping a copy of it as a UWA zoom. I am sending my current copy to tokina to see if they can improve the edges a little bit. But, even if they can not do much about it, its still way better than the 17-40.

P.

[bigcountry]

it's a good lens. it is staying on my camera for most of the reception at weddings.

[agphotography]

Can you post some more samples? I guess what I'm really concerned with is if it has very high center sharpness and good corner sharpness (doesn't have to be mind-blowing, not for a UWA)

The 16-35L is good in the center, but not outstanding.

[agphotography]

Did some scouting around and I came across this site: http://ad.impress.co.jp/special/kenko1011/

Not sure if you have been there or not but they do have a bunch of samples posted w/ a 5DmkII

[bohdank]

Thanks.... Can't read Japanese (I assume Japanese) and I wish those images were larger. Can't tell anything from those tiny samples.

[RaKLeZ]

^^
But these are full res samples (5616×3744), just click on each picture to view larger image. The sharpness looks great in my opinion. Can't wait to get this lens...

Finally some serious UWA zoom for Canon's FF...

[bohdank]

Ah, ok.... I did click on one, earlier, and got a fairly small JPG. Depends on the viewer. Bigger now. Any sharpening applied to these ? That's why I hate "look how sharp these are" downsized web images. You almost never know what was done to them.

[gkanetkar]

Thanks.... Can't read Japanese (I assume Japanese) and I wish those images were larger. Can't tell anything from those tiny samples.

You can use 'Google chrome' browser. Translates it automatically from Japanese to English.

[agphotography]

That's one thing I'm going to miss about Chrome.... But they're being idiots and dropping support for h.264 so I'm back to Safari now.

[RaKLeZ]

The flare comment might be a deal breaker for me. I shoot a LOT of concerts and back lighting, in the frame, is often very strong.

Found this on German dslr forums.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/8484/img0940r.jpg
http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=631936&page=13

Not that bad...

[bohdank]

You can see a green flare spot in the foreground. I'll need to try it myself, under the conditions I will normally use it. I saw a series of shots that showed none, others that showed a rainbow effect and now this one.

I wish someone would do a reasonable comparison showing the IQ of this lens under different conditions. At this point, since I have one on order, I don't really care. I'll do my own :-)

[ilumo]

just read rockwells review... he says that the nikon version is "sharper" than the 14-24... yet, the canon version is the "same" as the 16-35, which has pretty poor corners, and center sharpness is decent... I know that the nikon 14-24 destroys the canon 16-35, so what gives? I don't want this lens if its the same as the canon 16-35...

[bigcountry]

more examples:

http://www.holzphotoclient.com/Other/RI/082W9769crtv5/1145571902_xPbT7-O.jpg

http://www.holzphotoclient.com/Other/RI/082W7606crtv1/1144428264_ffyFt-O.jpg

http://www.holzphotoclient.com/Other/RI/082W8617crtvsmallcrtv1/1144428393_S3cjP-O.jpg

http://www.holzphotoclient.com/Other/RI/082W9769day/1145571875_jkYjv-O.jpg

http://www.holzphotoclient.com/Other/RI/082W9752aday/1145572047_oM594-O.jpg

http://www.holzphotoclient.com/Other/RI/082W8127crtvsmallcrtv3/1147602551_sbQog-O.jpg

http://www.holzphotoclient.com/Other/RI/082W8668crtvsmallcrtv1/1147602636_uKGpj-O.jpg

these are not full res high quality images, but they look good.

[bohdank]

Thanks.....

The thing is, they are highly processed, no EXIF and could be cropped, for all I know. I'm waiting for one of the well known review sites to do their thing, assuming they review it before I get one of them.

[bigcountry]

Thanks.....

The thing is, they are highly processed, no EXIF and could be cropped, for all I know. I'm waiting for one of the well known review sites to do their thing, assuming they review it before I get one of them.


well known review sites? it's all about bias. just get the lens and enjoy it.

[Trevor04GT]

I want to see what this lens will do in real life situations. And not over-processed pics that make the lens look not that good.

[bohdank]

well known review sites? it's all about bias. just get the lens and enjoy it.

The few that I frequent such as Dpreview, Photozone, SLRGear pretty much come out with the same numbers/results. A little bit of reading and interpreting the final opinions of the reviewer and they usually get it right.

Most of the time, the criticism of their reviews comes from an owner, here or elsewhere, that feels the need to defend their purchase ;-)

Ultimately, it is what I or you think of the lens we own and not someone else.

[bigcountry]

hahaha you are saying my photos dont look good?





I want to see what this lens will do in real life situations. And not over-processed pics that make the lens look not that good.

[marcus riley]

just read rockwells review... he says that the nikon version is "sharper" than the 14-24... yet, the canon version is the "same" as the 16-35, which has pretty poor corners, and center sharpness is decent... I know that the nikon 14-24 destroys the canon 16-35, so what gives? I don't want this lens if its the same as the canon 16-35...

Haha, what gives is that maybe you are expecting objective opinions from Rockwell. Good question though, but I wouldn't put to much faith in the review you read. Wait for something more... scientific.

[agphotography]

hahaha you are saying my photos dont look good?

I like them, and I think it is relevant to this thread because it's technically the example thread. But so many of us are still trying to determine the quality of this lens. Can't please everyone I guess.

[bigcountry]

i'll post the lighthouse shots unedited, uncropped, give me a few to find them

[bohdank]

Please do not go out of your way. Maybe others may find it useful but unless you post 100% crops, center/corners, of flat field subjects, at f2.8 and 16/28, I don't see the point. Downsized web images have a way of masking all kinds of sins.

[ilumo]

Haha, what gives is that maybe you are expecting objective opinions from Rockwell. Good question though, but I wouldn't put to much faith in the review you read. Wait for something more... scientific.

I agree. I take his reviews with a grain of salt. I'm waiting for something from photo zone. Nice and objective.

[RaKLeZ]

Ok, I've got the lens and... of course there's a defect...

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/6862/dfcr.jpg

Looks like a small piece of glass is missing inside... I'm getting tired of this...
How could this pass through quality control?....


http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8830/2470cr.jpg



SAMPLES: RAW default > JPEG in ACR

16mm F2.8
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1616535/16-28/2.8.JPG

16mm F4.0
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1616535/16-28/4.0.JPG

16mm F5.6
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1616535/16-28/5.6.JPG

16mm F8.0
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1616535/16-28/8.0.JPG



FLARE
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1616535/16-28/F1.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1616535/16-28/F2.JPG

It's a double RAINBOW, all the way! :lol:


VIGNETTING

F2.8
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4497/v28c.jpg

F4.0
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/7161/v40ul.jpg

[bohdank]

Thanks. That flare is unacceptable and I would be in much worse situations with it, most of the time. I think I am going to cancel my order and wait till I'm into concert season to maybe order again so I can actually try it under normal, for me, conditions.

[RaKLeZ]

That flare is unacceptable
I guess that defect may cause some problems here but still... 17-40L is much better in this area...

I'm sending it back and going to try another 17-40L... hopefully it will be sharp enough this time... I miss my C10-22mm to be honest... that was a fantastic lens...

[bohdank]

I had the 10-22 when I had a 40D. It was better than the 17-40 on a FF, imo.

[RaKLeZ]

I agree, sharp from corner to corner at F3.5, low barrel distortion, great flare resistance... funny thing is that I tried it on the FF (took that plastic thing off to fit EF) and even here it was much better (at 16-17mm) than the 17-40L, except the very extreme corners (we know why...)

[bohdank]

I canceled my order. If it still looks like it might be worth looking at by the time June comes around, I'll order one at that time.

[bohdank]

All the samples that have been posted still display (except the first) so I'm not sure what you are talking about (blank samples).

When they actually make this lens more available, you should start to see more samples.

[garys1]

Hey gang, been perusing this thread. If it's supposed to be the lens sample thread, then garys1, you ought to find a host that will keep your pics indefinitely. Hopefully this thread will grow for years to come and the first half dozen pages are full of blank samples. Not a great start, eh? :)
Cheers!

I cleaned up my Flickr account. I think those pics were up long enough! Others must have this lens as well (BH says it's out of stock). Let some of them post up samples.

[bohdank]

They show fine, for me.

[Mookalafalas]

I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. For being six pages into a thread for a lens that has supposedly been out of months there are virtually no examples of what this lens can (or can't!) do. There are a pair of vignetting examples, and pictures of the lens, a picture supposedly taken with this lens in Germany...but otherwise it seems almost like a hoax. Does this lens even exist? Even the flickr thread just has real-world pictures from a single person, and they all are so underexposed (perhaps shady?;)) that either the lens or the photographer seems to have serious problems. If there was anything concrete to lead me to think this is a good lens I would consider getting one, but as it is there is little more than speculation...
I think I'm going to buy an old Tamron 19-35 from Ebay. At least if it's crap I'll only be out $150.

[dog rocket]

I can play that game too. We may as well all delete our posts so someday this thread may show samples instead.

[ilumo]

I'm not sure what either of you are talking about. For being six pages into a thread for a lens that has supposedly been out of months there are virtually no examples of what this lens can (or can't!) do. There are a pair of vignetting examples, and pictures of the lens, a picture supposedly taken with this lens in Germany...but otherwise it seems almost like a hoax. Does this lens even exist? Even the flickr thread just has real-world pictures from a single person, and they all are so underexposed (perhaps shady?;)) that either the lens or the photographer seems to have serious problems. If there was anything concrete to lead me to think this is a good lens I would consider getting one, but as it is there is little more than speculation...
I think I'm going to buy an old Tamron 19-35 from Ebay. At least if it's crap I'll only be out $150.

lol. i hear you... I couldnt wait. so I purchased a 17-40L for my FF wide angle for "now". until I see some really positive reviews on this, I will use the stop gap lens. either that, or wait for canons 14-24 :D

[AzzKicker]

I think I'd still rather get a used 16-35 f2.8 L II. Not big of a price difference and you can use filters, better flare, weather sealed.

[hieu1004]

Here's a few pictures:

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=13184&camera=1113&perpage=30&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3

[bohdank]

Check the flare right infront of the bench on the ground.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/53751407@N04/5422628564

more

http://www.flickr.com/photos/53751407@N04/5402571465

http://www.flickr.com/photos/53751407@N04/5374255174

There is also a shot with a plane... at the end of its contrail there is some flare.

[AzzKicker]

Talk about a bummer. The lens looks great except the flare :(

[garys1]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5099/5590825814_f631704545_b.jpg

[Red_Dog]

Got mine on Friday, but haven't had much opportunity to experiment with it. Today, after the last inning of the youth softball game I was shooting I pulled off my white lens and threw this on in time to catch a few frames of the girls coming in after their win. The sun was to my back, so there isn't much to indicate flaring potential.

Both shots are straight from my 1D Mark II, no post. 1/1600 @ f/4, I didn't have time to change anything after pulling off my 70-200 2.8. They're pretty much snap shots, but it gives some idea of what to expect from this lens.

at 28mm:
http://orders.reddogphotog.com/photos/i-XZq3krk/0/XL/i-XZq3krk-XL.jpg

at 16mm:
http://orders.reddogphotog.com/photos/i-82DB8Xq/0/XL/i-82DB8Xq-XL.jpg

[Jonathan Taylor]

haven't shot anything to show the incredible DoF yet, but shot this last night during my friend's indie film production.
(5DII, 16mm @2.8 around ISO6400)

[thenextguy]

haven't shot anything to show the incredible DoF yet, but shot this last night during my friend's indie film production.
(5DII, 16mm @2.8 around ISO6400)

Is that guy on the left out of focus? Or is that what the edges look like?

[Jonathan Taylor]

Is that guy on the left out of focus? Or is that what the edges look like?

He's a good chunk out of focus. It was shot at 2.8 and focused on the guy in the window. The edges on this lens are nice and sharp, when in focus. Beats my experiences with the 16-35L by a longshot.

[Mookalafalas]

Or could he have moved some? Must have been fairly slow shutter speed...

[Jonathan Taylor]

Or could he have moved some? Must have been fairly slow shutter speed...

1/125th

[Marloon]

I wish that tokina did a better job with this lens. They did a phenomenal job with the 11-16, why could they do the same for this lens! Sigh...

[Mookalafalas]

As far as I can tell, the jury is still out on this one. The photozone review is actually very positive, except for the QC complaints, but then that isn't that unusual for a newer product. I already went the 17-40 route myself, but feel some regret...

[Jonathan Taylor]

I already went the 17-40 route myself, but feel some regret...

You should. This lens (well, my copy at least) is effing PHENOMENAL. Put it to the test yesterday at it's first wedding. It blows my other lenses out of the water for sharpness and saturation wide open. A little hazy around contrasting edges, but no chromatic aberration whatsoever. Unfortunately, photobucket does not do it's true colors justice.

Canon 5D Mark II, Tokina 16-28. ISO 320, 1/640, 28mm f/2.8:
http://i858.photobucket.com/albums/ab142/JonathanTaylorPhoto/IMG_0216editWM.jpg?t=1305488840

[agphotography]

So do we have an answer yet? If one owns a decent copy of the 16-35L mkI would it be in any way beneficial to trade it in for this Tokina? (say loss of filters wasn't important)

[atlrus]

I would love to get some fresh info on this lens, too...

[Tee Why]

Looks like a second batch came in. Most stores didn't have them in stock till a few days ago and it looks like everyone has it for sale now. Maybe the second batch may have better QC, but seeing from the lack of talk/buzz about this lens, I suspect demand is not that high.

I like the lens but for me, it's a bit too much at $850. I'd personally would go for it at $700 but I may have to wait for the price to drop to that level if it does.

I guess time will tell.

[imposterjeff]

i think thi may be my next lens i need a wide and whn i had a mid zoom i still went for my 50 all the time so

[Red_Dog]

I finally got to use my 16-28 a LOT today, and I'm VERY happy with the results. I'll post some examples once I get the set processed. Since there was a lot of questions about flaring, I did a couple of shots upward with the sun in the frame to post SOOC.

I will say, while the lens will flare from time to time, it's fairly unobtrusive and only really looks iffy when the lens is backed all the way off to 16mm. The first shot is at 21mm, shot into a midday sun, and I'm quite happy with the flaring:

http://orders.reddogphotog.com/photos/i-S97KTn6/0/X2/i-S97KTn6-X2.jpg

At 16mm, however, it builds up strongly in the opposite corner and doesn't look as good. It's cloneable in this example so I'm not that upset, especially since I was deliberately trying to make the lens flare:

http://orders.reddogphotog.com/photos/i-hjTBf33/0/X3/i-hjTBf33-X3.jpg

Overall, I couldn't be happier with this lens. It did wonderful for me today and I have no regrets about my purchase.

[dpayne1]

I just got the tokina from B&H this week - I have a used (From KEH) 16-35mm II that I have not been thrilled with - could be my copy - I don't know. So, I setup the tripod and took back to back shots with both lenses - cropped to 90%, 16mm, ISO 100, f2.8 and then f4.0 for both. I used manual focus and focused on the infinity symbol of the subject. the canon is first @2.8 then 4.0 followed by the tokina.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6751608/Canon16-35LII2.8.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6751608/Canon16-35LII4.0.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6751608/tokina16-28ATXpro2.8.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6751608/tokina16-28ATXpro4.0.jpg

The tokina isn't perfect (big, heavy) but it's staying and the 16-35 is going. The lens in the picture is better than both the UWA zooms btw.

[Red_Dog]

A few recent examples from mine, these are all processed...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5152/5817290234_af64494b71_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5817290234/)
20110609_1D2_0061 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5817290234/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2159/5817289200_062c5ed958_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5817289200/)
20110609_1D2_0051-Edit (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5817289200/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2394/5816722909_1b16b51cc7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5816722909/)
20110609_1D2_0027 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5816722909/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/5817287316_db81d3cd1d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5817287316/)
20110609_1D2_0012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5817287316/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2226/5817286778_a936065ec9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5817286778/)
20110609_1D2_0008 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5817286778/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2573/5816720217_11362e1bff_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5816720217/)
20110609_1D2_0006 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5816720217/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3420/5810802582_c19483f4c0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5810802582/)
20110514_1D2_0032-Edit (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5810802582/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2671/5772585569_6c8b9a7b0b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5772585569/)
20110528_1D2_0485 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5772585569/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[bohdank]

I'm still tempted to give it another try (my first one was defective) but B&H never seems to have in stock.

[NotASpeckOfCereal]

The tokina isn't perfect (big, heavy) but it's staying and the 16-35 is going. The lens in the picture is better than both the UWA zooms btw.

Can you comment on the colour rendition between the 16-35 and the Tokina?

L glass always gives great colours.......

[dpayne1]

Can you comment on the colour rendition between the 16-35 and the Tokina?

L glass always gives great colours.......

I don't see much of a difference with the color rendition - but that's just my opinion I have no basis for that statement. I know that the Tokina is sharper than my 16-35.

[booja]

I don't see much of a difference with the color rendition - but that's just my opinion I have no basis for that statement. I know that the Tokina is sharper than my 16-35.

you have a bad copy of the 16-35. i have a 16-35L version 1 and its way sharper than your 16-35L

[Headshotzx]

I'm thinking that this lens could be a great addition to my 35L and 85... Seeing the great pictures and reviews from people here, I might just be tempted to get one!

[Red_Dog]

More images from this week... Seriously, this is my most used lens now unless I need a telephoto.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5067/5867252717_6baf6f7aa2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5867252717/)
20110619_1D2_0062 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5867252717/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3197/5868153336_d60d5e35fe_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5868153336/)
20110623_1D3_0001 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5868153336/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/5867598171_aeb362af0e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5867598171/)
20110623_1D3_0012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5867598171/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3133/5867599367_ee6407cebc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5867599367/)
20110623_1D3_0035 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5867599367/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/5868162612_0945679499_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5868162612/)
20110624_1D3_0593 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5868162612/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3114/5867607381_d36061f980_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5867607381/)
20110625_1D3_0602 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5867607381/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5160/5868163850_913d0e62f8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5868163850/)
20110625_1D3_0608 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5868163850/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[kylyo]

Man, if this thing could take filters I would buy it in a second!

[Red_Dog]

What are you looking to filter it with?

[kylyo]

Just being able to use GND's

[Red_Dog]

If there's a 100mm polyester GND available, a Lee Gelsnap will work (barely) but vignettes on my 1.3x at anything wider than 22mm.

[Red_Dog]

More:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5156/5870708586_bfe5dedc8f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5870708586/)
20110624_1D3_0542 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5870708586/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5826963896_f30ddd24c9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5826963896/)
20110611_1D2_0748 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5826963896/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2712/5772584635_ca78744de4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5772584635/)
20110528_1D2_0475 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5772584635/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5188/5773927899_44073c0282_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5773927899/)
20110529_1D2_0002 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5773927899/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[Red_Dog]

and more...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5186/5773933245_c1474c7dfb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5773933245/)
20110529_1D2_0031 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5773933245/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5188/5778054725_d883b7b7dc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5778054725/)
20110529_1D2_0098-Edit (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5778054725/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3352/5772582809_9ba3137d0f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5772582809/)
20110528_1D2_0454 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5772582809/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5773116948_f2707b4f71_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5773116948/)
20110528_1D2_0337 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5773116948/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[Red_Dog]

...and more...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5187/5826393093_cc87e4672e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5826393093/)
20110611_1D2_0704 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5826393093/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5112/5867251073_64c30ae63f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5867251073/)
20110618_1D2_0038 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5867251073/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3097/5844218288_703473c2c5_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5844218288/)
20110617_1D2_0016 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5844218288/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2739/5844220018_bae61c29a0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5844220018/)
20110617_1D2_0028 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5844220018/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3568/5844221012_0d22f8aa51_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5844221012/)
20110617_1D2_0037 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5844221012/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2668/5843724607_ca869a8c47_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5843724607/)
20110617_1D2_0011 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5843724607/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3153/5843670335_e72a9116c0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5843670335/)
20110617_1D2_0007 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5843670335/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[Mookalafalas]

Now there's the series of photos I'd been waiting for! I already bought a 17-40 and a Samyang 14, but if I hadn't, these pix would have pushed me towards this lens...

[richierich1212]

Nice shots Red!

[taxsux]

Great pics sir RD! Thanks

[Red_Dog]

Thanks for the complements everyone. I'm sure I'll have more to come in the future. Granted this is my first ever ultrawide, but I have absolutely NO regrets about my purchase. I've been able to create some of my best images yet with this lens.

[bohdank]

I just noticed B&H had them in stock so I pressed the Checkout button. Probably a mistake on my part. The flare is probably going to be it's downfall with me. I guess I'll find out.

Did I get their last one ? They are showing out of stock, again.

[Red_Dog]

While I understand that it is undesirable to many, I feel that the flare is part of this lens' character, not to mention the nature of the beast when shooting with an ultrawide.

[bohdank]

It's ugly rainbow flare. It serves no purpose but to screw up a shot :-)

Do you work in marketing ;-)

[Red_Dog]

It is a part of my job. :)

[bohdank]

:lol:

[Headshotzx]

Hmm so this lens costs less than the 16-35mk2, is sharper or as sharp as the canon, flares more, and can't have front filters on it... for cheaper?

[Mookalafalas]

In the example I posted earlier, I was shooting close to 90 degrees away from the sun (60, maybe?) and still had some flare. That was a bit off-putting. But perhaps they have worked out some of the problem with coatings or something? (Haven't seen too many complaints about it...)

Edit: turns out that pic was in another, abandoned thread for this lens. Here is the picture. The flair is towards the bottom left. The sun, however, was WELL out of the frame, to the right.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/5441165988_dceb7d96d6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59461816@N06/5441165988/)
2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/59461816@N06/5441165988/) by AGWalzem (http://www.flickr.com/people/59461816@N06/), on Flickr

[bohdank]

I got it today. Did a few flare tests but the real test, for me, will be next weekend shooting a couple of concerts.

I did some shooting around the house and outside and started to notice the right side was not as sharp as the left side. Further testing and comparing to my 24L at f1.4 (to make sure I was aligned properly) confirmed my suspicion. This is the second one I have received. First one, I didn't test much at all. The aperture would stick at F4 so I sent it back. If it looks like I can shoot concerts with it (almost always into lights), I'll decide whether to replace it/fix it or get a refund.

Interesting comparing to the 24L. Makes you appreciate how good that lens really is.

[Red_Dog]

More from today...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6123/5920586192_8cb6bde873_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920586192/)
20110710_1D3_1142 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920586192/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6136/5920587842_86225eff52_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920587842/)
20110710_1D3_1147 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920587842/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6029/5920589732_ed32c4593a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920589732/)
20110710_1D3_1156 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920589732/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6003/5920591446_e2d1187f63_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920591446/)
20110710_1D3_1196 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920591446/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6125/5920594500_0d262b2e8b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920594500/)
20110710_1D3_1213 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920594500/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[Red_Dog]

and more...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6011/5920033897_e926a7b1eb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920033897/)
20110710_1D3_1222 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920033897/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6132/5920601520_ff4f6b1db1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920601520/)
20110710_1D3_1243 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920601520/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6149/5920571694_0abe01fa03_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920571694/)
20110710_1D3_1086 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920571694/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6148/5920570460_fcdc7bdf5a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920570460/)
20110710_1D3_1085 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920570460/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6143/5920011151_1492ae27cc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920011151/)
20110710_1D3_1088 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920011151/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[Red_Dog]

Last ones for now...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6127/5920572722_de69871479_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920572722/)
20110710_1D3_1264 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920572722/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6149/5920012033_e0c7f65283_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920012033/)
20110710_1D3_1282 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920012033/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6143/5920015127_579176e88b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920015127/)
20110710_1D3_1306 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920015127/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6138/5920584472_d9cca41528_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920584472/)
20110710_1D3_1327 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920584472/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6142/5920025911_013fb0a328_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920025911/)
20110710_1D3_1355 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920025911/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6126/5920030141_f81d876034_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920030141/)
20110710_1D3_1369 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5920030141/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[bohdank]

Ya, it doesn't like any direct sun hitting the front element.

[HansSteinert]

If this thing took filters, I would buy it in a heartbeat.

But it doesn't, so I'm going with the 17-40mm.

Still super jelly of the IQ of this beast, though.

[Red_Dog]

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6150/5941190581_24ced48ebd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5941190581/)
20110716_1D3_1204 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5941190581/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[Jonathan Taylor]

Behind the scene's from a buddy's workshop this weekend. Straight out of camera, but compressed via facebook.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/282177_1844494363370_1570950073_31479239_5515597_n .jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/268127_1844494803381_1570950073_31479241_3742871_n .jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/281516_1844494923384_1570950073_31479242_7517549_n .jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/282604_1844495483398_1570950073_31479244_3592049_n .jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/268850_1844494563375_1570950073_31479240_660862_n. jpg

[Red_Dog]

New shot from today, we're finally getting some rain:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6021/5971580679_b0e4d2fe2e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5971580679/)
Stormy Sunday (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5971580679/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[NotASpeckOfCereal]

New shot from today, we're finally getting some rain:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6021/5971580679_b0e4d2fe2e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5971580679/)
Stormy Sunday (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5971580679/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

RD - maybe it's because your shots contain a lot of grass/plants but I see a green/blue cast to most of your shots. What PP are you doing or is this an effect of the lens?

[Red_Dog]

Part of my individual look on a lot of my images is a warm/cold split toning. My stuff is usually pretty boring in RAW:

http://www.reddog20.com//photography/misc/Screen%20shot%202011-07-25%20at%206.22.24%20AM.png

[Mookalafalas]

I agree you have made a lot of improvements in bringing out detail and improving contrast and saturation, but I also agree the green tinge is a bit too much...In the original the whites are pretty white, and in my eyes, anyway, that looks better.

[Jonathan Taylor]

bet nobody ever posts portraits here...

ps - this was just standing. no, i wasn't standing on anything, and no, i didn't edit my feet out. yeah, it's pretty wide.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/282533_1856471422789_1570950073_31491345_6814472_n .jpg

[Headshotzx]

Were you flying then? :wink:

[Jonathan Taylor]

Were you flying then? :wink:

that'd be nice. had the 5DII on live view, holding it over her. just high enough that i could still see the screen and my focus point. 'bout 6 and a half feet over her.

[bohdank]

You're over 7 feet tall !!!!!

[Mookalafalas]

You're over 7 feet tall !!!!!

Smart alecs:lol:
The camera just needs to be tilted a few degrees.

[Red_Dog]

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6137/5992727518_049c2d0121_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992727518/)
20110731_1D3_1318 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992727518/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6129/5992726252_c4ae803ddf_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992726252/)
20110731_1D3_1316 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992726252/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6027/5992158191_1dba1f1386_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992158191/)
20110731_1D3_1235 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992158191/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6126/5992153675_4c43233e65_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992153675/)
20110731_1D3_1103 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992153675/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6129/5992715754_22217be3b1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992715754/)
20110731_1D3_1230 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992715754/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6023/5992718246_230c266a62_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992718246/)
20110731_1D3_1242-Edit (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/5992718246/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

[Mookalafalas]

Red dog, a very attractive set.

[Tee Why]

Ordered one yesterday from B&H, it should be here by Friday. I'll give it a test and see. I'm hoping that almost a year into production, that they've got better QC by now. At least the front lens cap has been redesigned.

[bohdank]

It still falls off at the first opportunity.

[Red_Dog]

Mine just started falling off. My only real complaint so far.

More from today:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6025/6012875817_4b245aa3d6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/6012875817/)
20110806_1D3_1454 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/6012875817/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6123/6013423434_5f96c61288_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/6013423434/)
20110806_1D3_1420 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/6013423434/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6023/6012873795_811aa14d52_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/6012873795/)
20110806_1D3_1401 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/reddogphoto/6012873795/) by reddogphotography (http://www.flickr.com/people/reddogphoto/), on Flickr