Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 19 Mar 2013 (Tuesday) 17:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which of these Tokina 11-16mm is the better Lens

 
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Mar 22, 2013 14:21 |  #31

Bakewell wrote in post #15743907 (external link)
my new favorite phrase..."Confirmation bias" going on here...

Is that a confession? :D


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Mar 22, 2013 14:36 |  #32
bannedPermanent ban

RTPVid wrote in post #15743932 (external link)
Is that a confession? :D

My confession...

There are a couple of people on this forum who complain about flaring...two or three in particular who tag team with one rather vociferous complainer that managed to produce a picture with some rather horrendous flare.

There is one reviewer that has produced a picture containing flare. However, even he states that flare can be good and desired in certain situations.

There are literally hundreds of people that love this lens all over the internet. If you want to take this as confirmation bias...so be it....I don't think so. It seems to me the bias is on the side of "terrible flare, stay away from this lens!".


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Mar 22, 2013 14:46 |  #33

Bakewell wrote in post #15743976 (external link)
My confession...

There are a couple of people on this forum who complain about flaring...two or three in particular who tag team with one rather vociferous complainer that managed to produce a picture with some rather horrendous flare.

There is one reviewer that has produced a picture containing flare. However, even he states that flare can be good and desired in certain situations.

There are literally hundreds of people that love this lens all over the internet. If you want to take this as confirmation bias...so be it....I don't think so. It seems to me the bias is on the side of "terrible flare, stay away from this lens!".

First, I was just mildly needling you a bit; attempting a bit of humor...

But, I will point out I linked to two reviewers who have pictures demonstrating the flare with the II version.

And, it is a given (as in no one in this thread that I can find disputes this) that lots of people love this lens; that is not the same thing as saying that it does not flare worse than some other choices.

On that basis, it may not the best for UWA work where there will be bright lights (sun or artificial) in the picture (unless, of course, you WANT the effect the flare gives).

That is not bias; that is factually identifying a characteristic of this lens as it may impact a certain use of the lens compared with other choices.

Heck, even your primary nemesis in this thread has said in the past he loved the first version for astrophotography (IIRC... too lazy to look for the postings).


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Mar 22, 2013 14:47 |  #34
bannedPermanent ban

RTPVid wrote in post #15744009 (external link)
First, I was just mildly needling you a bit; attempting a bit of humor...

But, I will point out I linked to two reviewers who have pictures demonstrating the flare with the II version.

And, it is a given (as in no one in this thread that I can find disputes this) that lots of people love this lens; that is not the same thing as saying that it does not flare worse than some other choices.

On that basis, it may not the best for UWA work where there will be bright lights (sun or artificial) in the picture (unless, of course, you WANT the effect the flare gives).

That is not bias; that is factually identifying a characteristic of this lens as it may impact a certain use of the lens compared with other choices.

Heck, even your primary nemesis in this thread has said in the past he loved the first version for astrophotography (IIRC... too lazy to look for the postings).

right...


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 22, 2013 15:00 |  #35

RTPVid wrote in post #15744009 (external link)
Heck, even your primary nemesis in this thread has said in the past he loved the first version for astrophotography (IIRC... too lazy to look for the postings).

This is so, it's the reason I own the lens. I've also said that I would be only too pleased if the new Tokina had eliminated the flare problems because I find the fact that I need to own two UWA lenses particularly annoying.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Mar 22, 2013 15:18 as a reply to  @ hollis_f's post |  #36
bannedPermanent ban

So please advise me gentlemen...should I trash this $2000.00+ WA lens? Might even be worse than your Classic pic Frank.

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8233/8581193540_aa7493f2e2_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …bakewelldavid/8​581193540/  (external link) Terrible-Flare!-1 (external link) by DCBakewell (external link), on Flickr

How could this happen? Shame on Canon! Not!

Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Mar 22, 2013 15:47 as a reply to  @ Bakewell's post |  #37
bannedPermanent ban

My point is EVERY lens is capable of producing flare...so? I can produce flare with EVERY lens Canon makes including the 10-22. Does that mean it's a terrible lens? The Canon 10-22 is a great lens! It's just that the Tokina is a little better.

Finished in this thread...catch you on the flip side....;)


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Mar 22, 2013 16:03 |  #38

Bakewell wrote in post #15744210 (external link)
My point is EVERY lens is capable of producing flare...so? I can produce flare with EVERY lens Canon makes Including the 10-22. Does that mean it's a terible lens? NO! The Canon 10-22 is a great lens. It's just that the Tokina is a little better....

... but not as good at flare control.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 84
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 22, 2013 16:26 |  #39

Bakewell wrote in post #15744126 (external link)
So please advise me gentlemen...should I trash this $2000.00+ WA lens?

No, but you should remove the cheapo 'protective' filter you've put on it.

Besides, it's not just me that can take pictures with the 11-16 that show flare. I linked to half a dozen images, from a single week's postings in the lens sample archive, that show the sort of flare one can expect from this lens.

Yet again, I point out that these are supposed to be examples of the best you can expect from a lens. These people were proud of these shots. They weren't posting them as examples of how poor the lens is, but examples of how good it is.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Mar 22, 2013 16:41 |  #40
bannedPermanent ban

hollis_f wrote in post #15744346 (external link)
No, but you should remove the cheapo 'protective' filter you've put on it.

Besides, it's not just me that can take pictures with the 11-16 that show flare. I linked to half a dozen images, from a single week's postings in the lens sample archive, that show the sort of flare one can expect from this lens.

Yet again, I point out that these are supposed to be examples of the best you can expect from a lens. These people were proud of these shots. They weren't posting them as examples of how poor the lens is, but examples of how good it is.

Shame on me for coming back into this forum but couldn't resist considering my "nemesis" still wanted to play.

That pic was produced with the Canon 14mm 2.8L II. But you knew that already. Evidently what you didn't know was no filter can be attached to the lens because of it's physical structure. It's impossible! (Don't ever use filters on any lenses other than ND) I stepped outside my house and snapped 2 pics in 10 seconds and this was the best/worst. I could have avoided the flare if I chose to. Flare happens regardless of the lens...learn to control it and enjoy it! Some people actually try for and enjoy flare, witness the pics you mentioned!


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Mar 22, 2013 17:03 |  #41

Bakewell wrote in post #15744385 (external link)
... Flare happens regardless of the lens...learn to control it and enjoy it!

You keep restating variations on strawman arguments. The issue is not whether flare happens with any lens, but which lenses are better at controlling it through their inherent optical design.

Bluntly put, your picture does nothing to resolve the issues of
1. Does the II version of the Tokina 11-16 improve flare control over the I version?
2. If yes, by how much?
3. If yes, how does this improved flare control compare with the Canon 10-22?

Regarding issues 1 and 2, Ken Rockwell is not impressed. Is he also your "nemesis"?

You made a claim earlier in this thread that

Bakewell wrote in post #15733725 (external link)
"...The new lens has improved coatings to reduce/eliminate virtually all perceived flare issues thus unquestionably moving it to the top of the UWA lens list for crop sensor cameras...

and so far, you have provided nothing to back that up. Claiming that the II version "eliminate{s} virtually all perceived flare issues thus unquestionably moving it to the top of the UWA lens list for crop sensor cameras" is a very bold statement, deserving bold proof. I'm sorry, but web merchant user reviews just don't qualify.

I posted links to one reviewer that has pictures (of marginal value photographically, IMO) where comparison between the I and II versions is possible, but even there, he seemed to be saying the major improvement was in the color of the flare.

Intentionally inducing flare in a different lens entirely is nothing but a strawman. At least Frank's shots were of the same subject under the same conditions, so a direct comparison of the single characteristic of flare control was easy.

I don't expect you to pull all three lenses out of your kit to provide example photos, and I can't find examples from reputable reviewers on the web so far. But a lack of evidence does not mean you can just rush into the vacuum and make such statements and expect everyone to agree. Evidence is required.

Like Frank, I hope Tokina has addressed their flare control issue successfully, because that lens does have other advantages over the Canon 10-22, but hope is not evidence, either.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bakewell
Goldmember
1,385 posts
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Mar 22, 2013 17:27 |  #42
bannedPermanent ban

RTPVid wrote in post #15744463 (external link)
You keep restating variations on strawman arguments. The issue is not whether flare happens with any lens, but which lenses are better at controlling it through their inherent optical design.

Bluntly put, your picture does nothing to resolve the issues of
1. Does the II version of the Tokina 11-16 improve flare control over the I version?
2. If yes, by how much?
3. If yes, how does this improved flare control compare with the Canon 10-22?

Regarding issues 1 and 2, Ken Rockwell is not impressed. Is he also your "nemesis"?

Didn't know you were a fan of Ken who BTW makes his living linking to various retailers selling Nikon and Canon gear. Incidentally, you introduced the term "nemesis" earlier in the thread.

You made a claim earlier in this thread that and so far, you have provided nothing to back that up. Claiming that the II version "eliminate{s} virtually all perceived flare issues thus unquestionably moving it to the top of the UWA lens list for crop sensor cameras" is a very bold statement, deserving bold proof. I'm sorry, but web merchant user reviews just don't qualify.

Really? Why? Your opinion. Mines different.

I posted links to one reviewer that has pictures (of marginal value photographically, IMO) where comparison between the I and II versions is possible, but even there, he seemed to be saying the major improvement was in the color of the flare.

Intentionally inducing flare in a different lens entirely is nothing but a strawman. At least Frank's shots were of the same subject under the same conditions, so a direct comparison of the single characteristic of flare control was easy.

I don't expect you to pull all three lenses (I'm sure that's meant to be a slam..I have four!) out of your kit to provide example photos, and I can't find examples from reputable reviewers on the web so far. (because they don't exist?)But a lack of evidence does not mean you can just rush into the vacuum and make such statements and expect everyone to agree. Evidence is required. (both ways my friend)

Like Frank, I hope Tokina has addressed their flare control issue successfully, because that lens does have other advantages over the Canon 10-22, but hope is not evidence, either.

WA lens tend to produce more flare then regular primes. I hope your're not trying to convince people that the Canon 10-22 is "flare proof". The Tokina is a great WA lens.


Dave

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvrg35
Member
190 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Mar 22, 2013 17:28 |  #43

Bakewell wrote in post #15744210 (external link)
My point is EVERY lens is capable of producing flare...so? I can produce flare with EVERY lens Canon makes including the 10-22. Does that mean it's a terrible lens? The Canon 10-22 is a great lens! It's just that the Tokina is a little better.

Finished in this thread...catch you on the flip side....;)

Everyone here could read, but others have better reading comprehension. :P




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvrg35
Member
190 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Mar 22, 2013 17:33 |  #44

Bakewell wrote in post #15744531 (external link)
WA lens tend to produce more flare then regular primes. I hope your're not trying to convince people that the Canon 10-22 is "flare proof". The Tokina is a great WA lens.

Nobody said other lenses don't flare.

Nobody said the Tokina is a bad lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Mar 22, 2013 17:45 |  #45

Bakewell wrote in post #15744531 (external link)
WA lens tend to produce more flare then regular primes. I hope your're not trying to convince people that the Canon 10-22 is "flare proof". The Tokina is a great WA lens.

Yet another strawman.

Where did I say anything about "flare proof"? Where did ANYONE say that?

Regarding Ken R, his is one of 2 reviews I could find with pictures of flare with this lens. That doesn't make me a "fan".

But, I would consider him more reputable that some random person posting a 2 paragraph 5-star "review" on Amazon.com.

Both ways? Really? We have plenty of review evidence on the flare control performance of the Canon 10-22 and the Tokina 11-16 version I. It shows the Canon demonstrably superior in flare control.

The burden of proof is therefore on anyone (Tokina, you) who would claim that Tokina has sufficiently addressed this deficiency in their UWA zoom. It is not on everyone else to show that merely claiming improved multicoating in a press release has not solved the problem.

You're sure I meant what as a slam? A statement that it is unlikely that you (or anyone, for that matter) will have all three lenses in their kit? Wow! Why WOULD anyone have all three of these? But, if you do, please post pictures.

You really need to chill. Criticizing the Tokina 11-16 is is not a direct attack on you, personally. It's just a lens.


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,587 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which of these Tokina 11-16mm is the better Lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is DouglasAZ
707 guests, 318 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.