Wide angle lens test - Issue 91

[fe64970103]

Hi All,

I've just received my copy of the issue 91 and on my surprise there is a wide angle lens test. Great ! I'm just about to swap my beloved Sigma 10-20/3.5 for Tokina 11-16, but the article introduced some thoughts about my already made decision as I discared the Nikkor 10-24. And yes, I have to say I'm quite angry about that. Why ?

Being an engineer I trust technical data. In my strong opinion you can compare two lens by giving some numbers. If you don't have them you have to provide some examples (photos) in order to be credible. The article seems far from being objective. Truly seems to be very subjective and the given verdicts seems to be based on quick point and shots test. Nothing is said about lens consistency in different conditions, chromatic abberations, border sharpness and distorsion. Those are key point on which a UWA lens should be chosen. There are some words about image quality in general, bu there is no technical data, example pictures which prove what is said. Conclusion seems to be very superficial.

Speaking i ngeneral the whole internet world seems to be dissapointed about the new Nikkor 10-24 lens due its poor border performance and "ultra wide price". In your opinion this is the best choice if you are willing to pay the price difference. On the other side the world seems to be mad about the Tokina 11-16 for its superb an outstanding image quality in particular overall sharpness. Again acording to some facts (photozone.de) is FAR more sharper than Nikon. But in your test it received just an average score.

So my question is if you could explain more in details the final score and why I should go for the Nikkor 10-24 instead of Tokina 11-16, assuming I'm willing to pay the price difference and I'm interested in the 11~16 focal range.

Thanks for your clarification,
Marko

[flake]

Probably due to the fact that one manufacturer spends more on advertising than another, or perhaps that review is approaching the review from a partisan position.
I was looking through an old issue when the 5D MkII was released and they only gave it a silver! Most online reviews seem to be of the opinion it's the best all round camera money can buy.

I think I'd trust Photozone, I've always been impressed with their reviews and they don't have an axe to grind, there's also Fredmiranda, although reviews are often made in isolation and soon after purchase. One of my first posts on the old forum was regarding a test DCmag did on Sony Nikon and Canon DSLR's but they crippled the Canon by putting an old lens from the film days, which wasn't very good when it was released. The review went on to say how poor the Canon was in comparison without mention of the poor quality lens. It's a little like watching a race with the jockey having his hands ties behind his back and then criticising the horse for not winning the race!

[Amy Davies]

Hi Marko and flake,

First of all I would just like to reassure that you reviews that appear on PhotoRadar or in Photo Plus or Digital Camera will be impartial and will not be based on advertising spend by any given manufacturer.

Secondly, the Tokina lens you mention does not score an "average" mark, at 92% it scores only 1% less than the Nikkor lens. I spoke to the reviewer of the lenses, Matt Richards and his reply is below.

I hope this answers some of your questions:

"First and foremost, I must say that the review sample of the Nikon 10-24mm lens we received direct from Nikon UK proved astonishingly good throughout testing, at all focal lengths and all apertures. As with other Nikon-fit lenses in the group, I tested it on my Nikon D200 body, instead of my more recent D300 body, purely so that chromatic aberrations would be fully evident in test images rather than being masked by the D300's more advanced image processing system. Test shots themselves were taken in a number of interior and exterior locations, under wide-ranging lighting conditions varying from dull, flat lighting to bright, harsh sunlight. Images were taken throughout the whole zoom range and aperture range for all lenses.

As mentioned in the original copy, the main advantages and disadvantages of both the Nikon 10-24mm and Tokina 11-16mm lenses were as follows:

Nikon 10-24mm lens
Pros
1. Excellent sharpness and contrast, even at edges and corners of frame.
2. Excellent overall image quality.
3. Chromatic aberrations are almost non-existent.
4. Large 10-24mm zoom range.
5. Surprisingly little distortion for a lens with 2.4x zoom range.
6. Very good standard of build quality
7. Fast, quiet Silent Wave autofocus with full-time manual override.
8. Layout and handling are consistent with other recent Nikon lenses.
9. Includes lens hood and carrying pouch.

Cons
1. Relatively expensive to buy at £739.
2. A little pincushion distortion at the 24mm end of the zoom range.

Overall Rating: 93 per cent


Tokina 11-16mm
Pros
1. Excellent sharpness, even into corners and edges of frame.
2. Excellent contrast, even when shooting wide open.
3. Chromatic aberrations almost completely absent.
4. Negligible distortion throughout entire zoom range.
5. Fast constant aperture of f/2.8.
6. Very smooth and precise zoom and focus rings.
7. Professional-level handling and feel with 'battleship' build quality.
8. Relatively low purchase price... 'It's a brilliant lens for the money'.
9. Lens hood included.

Cons
1. 11-16mm (1.45x) zoom range is comparatively limited (Nikon has 10-24mm, 2.4x).
2. No AF motor so won't autofocus on Nikon D40, D40x or D60 cameras.

Overall Rating: 92 per cent


Overall Summary
In my tests, the image quality of the Nikon lens was the best in the whole group but it was only marginally better than the Tokina, which very narrowly dropped to second place in the round-up. I believe that this was accurately reflected in the difference in overall rating scores, which was just one single per cent. Other issues are that the Tokina won't autofocus on some Nikon cameras and has a relatively limited zoom range, although most people do tend to use ultra-wide zoom lenses at or near their shortest focal lengths most of the time.

As a reviewer, the ultimate question I always ask is, "Which lens would I buy myself?" Based on the review samples I was actually given I can say without the shadow of a doubt that, money no object, I'd buy the Nikon 10-24mm but, if I was on a tighter budget, I'd definitely still be very happy with the Tokina 11-16mm lens.

Cheers,
Matthew"

[fe64970103]

Dear Matthew and Amy,

I would really like to thank you for your reply. You really took the time to answer my concerns and to explain the test results.

I shot mostly landscapes with composition which relies on the foreground interest and the near/far relationship. That said border sharpness is extremely important for me. Especially in vertical compositions when the foreground is at the extreme lower border of the frame. And if the foreground is not tack sharp the shot looses its impact. Now, based on your test and explanation I really don't know how to decide. Overall I trust Nikon, but according to MTF charts it seems they really can't comete with the MTF charts of Tokina. Huh...decisions, decisions...

Anyway thanks a lot !

Marko

[fe64970103]

Decision has been made. Although Tokina seems to be a nice lady on the other side on the road I won't cross it and will stay with my wife Nikon. The lady has several interesting attributes but I have enough romances and will stay with the proven wife. I know what she knows in kitchen, it's a good mother too, could be funny and after all also ain't bad at all in bed

Sorry for the illustrative description,
Marko

[Amy Davies]

Hi Marko,

No problem with the reply - glad to have cleared a few things up.

Please do post some shots with your new lens in the gallery to let us know how you're getting on

Thanks,

Amy

[fe64970103]

OK! Finnaly after being sure to take the Tokina I changed my mind several times. I had to do my own test and my local distributro was kind enough to allow me 15 minutes with each lens.

Here is the test:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond9...7622349134141/

And a picture is worth 1000 words

Marko

[HinFrance]

Equipment testing is completely different in the French mags. It's all charts and graphs and bench tests. Pages of it. Maybe that's why they reported that Nikon had released the 300s, and I quote, 'in order to try to catch up with Canon and Pentax'. The French mags test in a much more methodical way, which I have found often leads to considerably different recommendations to those found in the much less technical UK mags.

But each to his own, these are only opinions offered for our consideration after all.

[flake]

It would be nice if there was a UK mag which tested in a similar way to photozones approach, more terchnical and objective. At the present time I find it difficult to tell much of a difference between the mags, and most of them are so basic that they hold little interest for me.

[KeithT]

It's always interesting to read technical lens reviews, but do they help the decision making process when wanting to buy a particular lens, or do they hinder it? If comparing lenses of the same class then I suppose they can, but if comparing a cheap lens with a medium priced, or lot dearer lens, there might be some awkward questions to be asked. I tend not to bother with charts and the like and listen more to those who own them and use them with the same camera body as I have. Better street cred that way. I do have a focus chart I use to check front and back focus if there are any issues but that's as technical as I bother to get. The rest I leave to word of mouth.