Tokina 12-24 II - Impressions

Hello!
Being that there are so many "Which UWA?" threads being posted, I thought I'd share my thoughts and feelings regarding the new and often overlooked Tokina 12-24 II, which I received yesterday. I had version I, but sold it when I went full frame, and re-bought version II when I went back to a crop body.

Handling/Build:
I am not one who demands an overly sturdy lens, but this lens is built like a tank and is quite significant in the hands. I don't think I'll have any worries when I take it out to Red Rock near Vegas in a couple weeks. The zoom ring is nice and quite sturdy, and the focusing ring is smooth (and I love their AF/MF switching system). It is a little more expensive than the Sigma 10-20 but you really are getting excellent build quality. The hood is nice and effective, as well.

Autofocus:
Yes, the lens makes a bit of a noise when autofocusing, but it is almost negligible. Focusing is zippy and is really no problem. I haven't had any problems except in areas of extremely low contrast, but I don't think I'll be complaining about that, either.

IQ:

Color/Contrast:
Wowsers. This is where this lens REALLY shines! I've never really used a lens that produces this level of color-wow (except for maybe the 17-40L). colors are reproduced accurately, and blues tend to come out quite rich. Contrast is quite nice, too. This is where a lens matters most, to me. I love color!!

Sharpness:
Sharpness is about what you'd expect from an UWA. It's sharp across the frame assuming you do everything correctly and don't try to shoot a landscape at f/4 and wonder why things are wrong. Ahem! Anyways, no complaints here, either. I am not experiencing any 'decentering' thus far.

CA:
Alas, this lens is not completely free of fault, and CA control is the area in which it is a tad lacking. It only really appears when the contrast is harsh (black powerlines on a white, blown-out sky), but it does appear. It's an easy fix in PS, though, and I'm not a pixel peeper so I don't foresee it being a real problem when I'm using it for my landscape and travel photography.

Flare:
Flare has definitely been improved in this version of the lens. I didn't get any objectionable flare, even when shooting right into the sun. Flaring was present, but nothing to be too concerned about.

Distortion:
Also very well controlled. Being 12mm, you shouldn't expect too much, and I love this lens' ability to keep the wide angle looking quite natural.

So, in essence, I HIGHLY recommend this lens to anyone looking for a quality UWA. 12mm is a good max width for me as I like to keep things looking somewhat natural, and 24mm makes for a very nice max length. I wouldn't worry about using this lens outdoors when conditions are less than ideal, and the colors are just out of this world. So, don't scratch it off your UWA list just yet.

And, of course, some various samples. You will never catch me shooting charts and graphs or brick walls, mind you. All taken on my 7D, only resized out of camera.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

WOW!!!

Really nice!! I'm also in the market for a UWA. I might consider this.. Thanks!!

thanks madhatter for the review. This lens is a real solid UWA or sure that definitely does get overlooked all the time.

Im considering this lens for my UWA needs and have my UWA search down to three lenses: Tokina 12-24 f4.0, Tokina 11-16 F2.8 and Canon 10-22 F3.5-4.5. Im confused as to what I want more in a UWA: focal length range or F2.8 aperture. I wish Tokina made a 10-24 F2.8 I can dream cant I ?

On a side note madhatter, exited about the new Alice in Wonderland movie, LOL!? <<< just figured i would ask with your username being "madhatter" and all!

I don't mean to veer too much out of topic, but how much better is a f2.8 aperture over a f4.0? Usually when people shoot landscapes, they'd want almost every in focus (infinity DOF? is that the right term?), correct?

XxDJCyberLoverxX wrote in post #9254253
I don't mean to veer too much out of topic, but how much better is a f2.8 aperture over a f4.0? Usually when people shoot landscapes, they'd want almost every in focus (infinity DOF? is that the right term?), correct?

Not important enough to cause me to buy the 11-16 over the 12-24. I was shooting at f /8, 1/40 shutter speed without problems. I don't need f/2.8 for my purposes, but some may.

JayStar86 wrote in post #9254178
On a side note madhatter, exited about the new Alice in Wonderland movie, LOL!? <<< just figured i would ask with your username being "madhatter" and all!

hahaha!! Eh, I'd like to see it. I'm not too much of a Disney enthusiast.

not sure if you'll still remember, but is there any difference between this version and the original one you had?

f/2.8 vs. f/4.0? Depends what you use it for. I often use f/2.8 for DOF and low light hand held purposes so I got the 11-16mm instead.

acoustikrage wrote in post #9255702
not sure if you'll still remember, but is there any difference between this version and the original one you had?

1) Less prone to flare
2) Less prone to CA (though it's still present)
3) More natural-looking colors (though this could be because I'm now on a 7D instead of a 40D)
4) Autofocus is a tad quicker (again, could be the body)

i really want this lens now. had my mind set on the sigma 10-20 for a while, but i think this tokina is better. seems like it's impossible to find the original dx version anywhere though.

Nice review and images. They made me think what the hell am I doing in NW Ohio... :S

acoustikrage wrote in post #9262507
i really want this lens now. had my mind set on the sigma 10-20 for a while, but i think this tokina is better. seems like it's impossible to find the original dx version anywhere though.

I was considering the 10-20 Sigma as well before I went ahead and purchased this lens. Though users don't seem to be as plentiful for the Tokina, the reviews were more favorable and my experience with the original version pushed me to choose it (that, and the fact people seem to complain about the Sigma's color and contrast being off). I do believe the original version is discontinued and would probably not be easy to find online at the moment (save for used).

Uh oh! More lens porn for you guys!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I wish this lens worked all the way through the range on a 1D because I'd be all over it if it did. The Sigma 12-24 looks good too but it's not constant f/4 unfortunately.

Nice lens! It looks like you are scheduled for a little wide angle fun in the coming months.