Tokina 12-24mm F4 II

[ajohnw]

Not sure where to post this as there is also a bit of a pp question but mostly about the lens.

I picked this one due to looking at some reviews and concluding that I might loose more view angle on some correcting perspective when they go down to 10mm. I've quickly corrected this shot for instance - mostly due to not holding the camera dead vertical.I haven't cropped the correction out and just a test subject. I've checked that the door frame is actually like the shot shows.



For some reason the conifer on the near right has flattened some what. Shape is about right.

Very very quick jpg pp, next to nothing done. My pp question relates to the purple on the trees in the background. It doesn't seem to be normal chromatic aberration. and I wondered if any one had thoughts on getting rid of it.

To be honest I had settled on the 12-28mm but forgot that when it was ordered but the only detailed review I can find on this one rates it pretty highly in all respects except flare so took this shot.



The sun is behind light cloud left top of tree and too bright to look at comfortably. I took 3 shots getting nearer and nearer to this one. No problems on any of them. Tokina always get comments about this aspect but where is the flair? I'me wondering if lens reviews are a bit like car ones - if one says they all do for ever and ever.

Another - showing that keeping the camera orientation matters. I'll get used to remembering to do that eventually. Just a snap shot to see what came out.



I missed my wife putting some cake in her mouth. A bit disapointed with the 80D here. The post previews aren't showing the right hand side. There isn't much scope for brigtening the greens to the right. I always wonder why all cameras wont let us set our own jpg tone curves to get what we want. There are other settings but I doubt if any will do what I ideally want.

John
-

[Dave Humphries]

I reckon there is some lateral CA (Chromatic Aberration) there John (up in the distant trees).

It is also possible it is axial CA, this exhibits as single colour, CA-like, halos around things that are out of focus and very over exposed. Although you won't see it in this shot, if you had a row of specular highlights running away from the camera and were focused on the middle of say 7, the three halos in front of plane of focus would be one colour (say green) and the three halos behind the plane of focus would be the opposite colour (say; magenta).

Then there's just sensor blooming as another possible cause.


If it was shot jpg, you're a bit stuffed, because if the camera hasn't corrected it (because it was a non Canon lens), then it is 'baked in'. You might manage to reduce it with ACR or LR, but I don't think you use those.

In either case, if it worries you that much, desaturate the coloured edges with a small brush at 100% zoom in your image editor.

HTH, Dave

PS
If you start shooting for real with this (or any) UWA lens, do yourself a favour and get a hot shoe level so you remember to level the camera left/right and fore/aft (aka lens pointed up/down) before shooting.
These are all tilted down on right and that should have been corrected before doing the perspective.
Definitely something best fixed 'in camera'

[ajohnw]

That's the strange thing about the CA Dave. I have corrected CA with the software I usually use on jpg's but all it seems to do with this is maybe move it towards grey. The CA effect is totally different so not sure if that is what it really is.

CA is often caused by differences in magnification according to colour. Another type can be caused by differing focal lengths against colour. Dpreview mention it as being complex, That may mean differing distortion according to colour which is a very similar thing to changes in magnification.

So far I am rather please with the choice but only time will tell. Maybe I should try a colour decomposition in the GIMP as that may show me what is actually going on. If similar conditions I will try the Canon lens out of curiosity.

On this one I would have to use some sort of healing brush.

I just had an odd thought. This sort of thing is a little reminiscent of an ancient debayering problem that fine leaf detail was prone too. I'd reset the camera and for testing hadn't re enabled raw.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

I also assumed the purple issue was chromatic aberration. I have the first version of this lens (love it!) and don't remember experiencing this issue, though probably because I haven't used it in this type of lighting situation.

I constantly use the electronic level built into my camera. I mention this just in case your camera also has one and perhaps you're unaware of it. Small chance of that, I realize. However, it indicates only horizontal tilt, not vertical tilt.

[DanK]

I constantly use the electronic level built into my camera. I mention this just in case your camera also has one and perhaps you're unaware of it. Small chance of that, I realize. However, it indicates only horizontal tilt, not vertical tilt.

On some cameras, the level(s) show both. My Canon 5D III has two--a good one on the lcd and a coarser one using AF points through the viewfinder--and both display vertical as well as horizontal tilt. My little Lumix LX100 has only one--it has an EVF, so the LCD and viewfinder views are basically the same thing--and and it also shows both. I don't know about John's cameras.

[Manfred M]

I don't have this lens, but do own the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm, so got to know the high quality mechanical and optical work that Tokina does.

Like Dave, I am definitely a fan of the hot shoe level and mine rarely leaves the camera (other than when I use the hot shoe to mount a Speedlight). Both the D800 and GX7 have built in levels, but I find that I find the physical level much easier to use and it seems to be slightly more accurate too.

[Mike Buckley]

It's good to learn that some cameras have an electronic level that indicates horizontal and vertical tilt. Ironically, though mine only indicates horizontal tilt, if the vertical tilt is extreme it no longer displays the horizontal tilt.

Using a bubble would work fine when using a tripod but not when shooting handheld.

[Manfred M]

Using a bubble would work fine when using a tripod but not when shooting handheld.

Actually Mike, I use it when shooting using LiveView. My tripods all have bubble levels , so I don't need it there.

I find that it works well when I am doing handheld interior / architectural shots in situations where I can't use a tripod. The results are not always 100%, but close enough for a fast fix in PP.

This is an interior shot taken at Rundale Palace, in Latvia, where I used this technique.

[Polar01]

Mike I also find the bubble level very useful when the camera is off a tripod. Really true when holding the camera at waist level, knee height or even a almost ankle level I not longer can go that low.

Cheers: Allan

[Mike Buckley]

I'm surprised you guys can concentrate on the composition and the bubble at the same time when shooting handheld. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do that, which is no surprise considering I'm such a klutz.

[Dave Humphries]

I'm surprised you guys can concentrate on the composition and the bubble at the same time when shooting handheld. I'm sure I wouldn't be able to do that, ~

It takes practice, but is easier when you're using Live View (esp. on a tilting LCD).
Trickier when using the eye level V/F.
As many here; I have a one axis e-Level in camera, which I always use (on the second shot), but if using the UWA, where lens tilt is far more important, then it is just a case of trying harder and repeating until correct.

~ no surprise considering I'm such a klutz.

Yeah, we've seen the broken wine glasses Mike

[Polar01]

When held low it is usually at 28mm or less, so what if you have to take 2 or 3 shots, as long as they are nice and level.

Cheers: Allan

[ajohnw]

It looks like the blue may be down to 80D jpg processing. I loaded a raw shot that is much the same into rawtherapee. No signs of it but I don't have the correct camera profile installed yet so the general colouring was poor. The camera jpg was the same as the one I posted. Turning the camera sharpening off got rid of a sort of gritty look at 100% resolution. I'm just using neutral at the moment.

My son has the Canon EFS 10-22mm. Better not say much until I get a tripod out but it struggled in the same areas but no blue. More like a grey. I had turned the corrections off. The 2 lenses focused at different distances so hard to compare. My son reckons that the camera must have shook when I tried his.

The camera does have the usual single level and a grid view. I usually find I can use the verticals in the shot for the other one. I sometimes use P mode and did for these. Maybe I was fiddling about too much but I don't recollect a camera going back to what it thinks I should use before I have clicked the shutter. It defeats the whole idea in my view.

John
-

[Tronhard]

I reckon there is some lateral CA (Chromatic Aberration) there John (up in the distant trees).

It is also possible it is axial CA, this exhibits as single colour, CA-like, halos around things that are out of focus and very over exposed. Although you won't see it in this shot, if you had a row of specular highlights running away from the camera and were focused on the middle of say 7, the three halos in front of plane of focus would be one colour (say green) and the three halos behind the plane of focus would be the opposite colour (say; magenta).

Then there's just sensor blooming as another possible cause.

If it was shot jpg, you're a bit stuffed, because if the camera hasn't corrected it (because it was a non Canon lens), then it is 'baked in'. You might manage to reduce it with ACR or LR, but I don't think you use those.

In either case, if it worries you that much, desaturate the coloured edges with a small brush at 100% zoom in your image editor.

HTH, Dave

PS
If you start shooting for real with this (or any) UWA lens, do yourself a favour and get a hot shoe level so you remember to level the camera left/right and fore/aft (aka lens pointed up/down) before shooting.
These are all tilted down on right and that should have been corrected before doing the perspective.
Definitely something best fixed 'in camera'

I agree about the possible CA in the shot, especially since the tree is on the periphery. With regards the levelling, the 80D has a built-in level that can display within the eyepiece while you are shooing. It appears on the bottom left of the screen, as shown below.

[ajohnw]

It doesn't seem to be much of a problem to get rid of it. A min. tuning it out and a few more mins playing with the software as it has changed since I last used it. Biggest problem was that the initial image from raw was awful. Sort of foggy cast but some one had posted a patch to decode the raw that the 80D produces.

My screen shot software produces pretty low quality jpgs.



It's held some colour but there will be some loss as it's up against a truly blown sky. I can't really find any cases of straight forward CA in the shot.

The camera profile I used is a bit chocolate boxy for my tastes but not much point adjusting until I use the lens on something sensible.

Now I have loaded it I can see I should have depressed it a touch more. Not a problem really.

John
-

[rpcrowe]

Here are a few hand held shots I did with the 12-24mm Tokina Mark-I in Natchez, Mississippi...

[ajohnw]

That's the sort of thing I bought it for Richard. I did wonder about going down to 10mm but in the price range some have complex distortion or more of it and the Tokina generally tests out with very good resolution figures.

Most of my money is in m 4/3 but I haven't bought the 7-14mm yet. I have a bit of a concern. To me it looks like the Panasonic is a better bet than Olympus purely size wise but working from raw I can't help wondering if a Samyang wouldn't be any more difficult to sort out. Suspect I will get one first and find out.

John
-

[rpcrowe]

I worked in Photoshop to remove (as best I could) the perspective distortion. I really dislike verticals which are not vertical.

[ajohnw]

I worked in Photoshop to remove (as best I could) the perspective distortion. I really dislike verticals which are not vertical.

I didn't bother on the last shot I posted or holding the camera vertical. I wanted to compare with a Canon lens so wanted the framing to be the same. I think I corrected both on the first one I posted. No point on the second one.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Maybe I should have bought one working from 10mm. No more shooting space available.



It's unusual to be able to take a photo inside a National Trust property with no people in the view. They also don't care what they leave in view to try and keep it all in good condition either.

Getting the carpet and furniture right has thrown the ceiling out a touch. On my first go the carpet was miles out. Looked to be down to using an Adobe camera profile for the 80D. The jpg wasn't too bad but the cameras noise removal messed up the detail. I thought it was the lens at first. ISO 3200 if I remember correctly. Most of the noise using the Adobe profile was in green.

John
-