PDA

View Full Version : Tokina 12-24 and Nikkor 70-300VR test shots



erichlund
07-17-2007, 06:40 PM
Wife dragged me to the OC Fair this weekend, so in revenge :D, I brought my camera. Partially, I brought it to take some shots of entries she and her friends had in the machine knitting area. But I also wanted to test these two lenses. Below are a couple of shots from the Tokina and one from the Nikkor. They are at 12, 24 and 300mm.

http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/photos/174152928-L.jpg

12mm - 1/40 f11: In this first photo, I just shot with auto focus. My wife was digging out her lunch. You can see in the middle of the photo, a girl with a white sweater. There's another girl sitting at the next table down, partially hidden.

http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/photos/173975230-L.jpg

24mm - 1/30 f11: In this shot, I specifically overrode the focus to focus on my wife's face. This left the background a bit out of focus. Now you can clearly see the girl sitting about 4 tables away.

http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/photos/173975406-L.jpg

300mm - 1/60 f11: Here she is at 300mm. So, that's basically the far end of the person size range of this lens. Don't know the flavor of Icee, but that's a cheeseburger.

Remember, that's a 450mm angle of view, so that's about 3 stops worth of VR happening. Not bad for handheld.

XaiLo
07-17-2007, 07:50 PM
pretty cool results... gotta luv that nikkor though. ;)

LR Max
07-17-2007, 08:25 PM
Definately some good results. I am curious to find out what apetures the 70-300VR perform best at. I know a the telephoto end, my Nikkor 18-200VR is best at f/13. If the 70-300VR was sharpers at a lower apeture (I would imagine it is) then I would heavily consider it.

erichlund
07-18-2007, 12:06 AM
Definately some good results. I am curious to find out what apetures the 70-300VR perform best at. I know a the telephoto end, my Nikkor 18-200VR is best at f/13. If the 70-300VR was sharpers at a lower apeture (I would imagine it is) then I would heavily consider it.

That will have to wait a couple of weeks. We're going on vacation. Of course the lens will get a thorough test during our trip up the California coast, along with all my lenses. It's going to be a fun trip.

wh0128
07-18-2007, 03:48 PM
Great test shots! I'm thinking about looking into the 12-24 from Tokina and I just love the 12mm wide angle shot you took.

THe 70-300 shot looks very sharp especially since you hand held it.

erichlund
07-18-2007, 05:12 PM
Great test shots! I'm thinking about looking into the 12-24 from Tokina and I just love the 12mm wide angle shot you took.

THe 70-300 shot looks very sharp especially since you hand held it.

Thank you. I was just playing around with it a bit. I had sharpening set to med high in the camera, and didn't do any sharpening in post processing. In fact, the only post processing in these photos was to set a white and a black control point in each photo. The noon light is kind of cool and setting the control points pops the color a little bit.

The 12mm was autofocused and gave very nice depth of field. In the full size NEF file, you can read all those signs in the background area, and they are sharp as a tack. You lose a lot when you go to a much smaller jpg.

The 24mm was specifically focused on my wife, and that caused me to lose the sharpness in the background, as expected. After all, she was maybe 2 feet from the lens and I had to crank it nearly a quarter turn to bring her into sharp focus.

wh0128
07-18-2007, 07:02 PM
Yes totatlly understood about the 24mm shot. I love the out comes. NOw its whether or not I want the Tokina over the Nikkor...

tim11
07-18-2007, 08:20 PM
.......

http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/photos/173975406-L.jpg

300mm - 1/60 f11: Here she is at 300mm. So, that's basically the far end of the person size range of this lens. Don't know the flavor of Icee, but that's a cheeseburger.

Remember, that's a 450mm angle of view, so that's about 3 stops worth of VR happening. Not bad for handheld.

Was the image cropped? How much % was it resized? Can you post a 100% on the focus point?
That's impressive shot from a great lens. I might get it sometimes down the line.

erichlund
07-19-2007, 12:31 AM
It's late. I will try and get to the 100% crop tomorrow. This is the full image, no crop, 2 control points, convert to jpg. The focus point was in the center of the image, and was autofocus, so it would not be the classic focus on the eyes portrait. Basically it was a snapshot at max telephoto to see what I'd get.

On the convert to jpg, I used the default good balance setting. I will post a link to the full jpg tomorrow so you can look at the full size images. I just haven't gotten around to cleaning up and really utilizing my smugmug account yet, so I don't normally post the link to my page.

tcadwall
07-19-2007, 07:37 AM
Erich
Not sure what you are converting with, but most in-camera settings do not affect nef files. IOW sharpening. That is done during conversion. Some converters will apply the in-camera settings (which are available in the nef data), so maybe that was done in the conversion.... But just wanted to make sure that you knew that. Raw images do need sharpening. The bayer pattern on the sensor will not produce a sharp image. Now, everything is relative, but sharpening is necessary - at least a little - unless you are going for a soft look (portraits for instance).

erichlund
07-19-2007, 08:39 AM
Erich
Not sure what you are converting with, but most in-camera settings do not affect nef files. IOW sharpening. That is done during conversion. Some converters will apply the in-camera settings (which are available in the nef data), so maybe that was done in the conversion.... But just wanted to make sure that you knew that. Raw images do need sharpening. The bayer pattern on the sensor will not produce a sharp image. Now, everything is relative, but sharpening is necessary - at least a little - unless you are going for a soft look (portraits for instance).

Now I know you are not a Nikon Capture user. Nikon Capture and Capture NX apply the settings as shot in the camera when you bring up the image. Since it is EXIF data, you can then turn them off (as if they never happened). However, if I shoot with Med High sharpening turned on, NX will display and print with Med High sharpening until I change it. Some (lesser) RAW image processors cannot handle some or all of the EXIF data, so you only get the RAW data, and you have to do all the work. This is NOT the case with Capture.

Here's that link I promised to the full jpgs on SmugMug (http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/gallery/3163871/1/173975230). Looking further at the full size image, it could probably use some additional processing, including removing the Med High sharpening and applying UML. I just don't have time to do it.

tcadwall
07-19-2007, 09:06 AM
Now I know you are not a Nikon Capture user.
You have me pegged. However, I do use a "lesser" converter that does recognize and (if you choose) defaults to some camera settings for processing.

However, according to my experience, as well as research, sharpening should be one of the last things applied to an image. Especially when it comes to shots that require any noise reduction for instance. Some NR software (including Noise Ninja which ships with my converter) will work on the raw images, and will take into consideration sensor specific noise patterns and optimize the reduction based on this.

So I actually have configured my software to NOT apply sharpening.

I guess also I would just mention that the reason that I brought up this subject is because you mentioned in camera sharpening only.
Thank you. I was just playing around with it a bit. I had sharpening set to med high in the camera, and didn't do any sharpening in post processing. and you also stated that you shot raw.

I think that Capture NX is a decent software and has its place. I like the control points for instance. But if you tried out some of the "lesser" converters, you might find that some of them truly aren't "lesser". I keep toying with the idea of adding Capture to my setup, but generally, it might make only a slight positive difference in my workflow under certain specific circumstances (mostly for the control points and how easy they are to use). Bibble (which is what I use primarily) has a tremendous customizeable workflow AND it does a very good job, AND allows many edits in the raw workflow that Capture users will have to convert, and then adjust in another software. Since using Bibble, there are very few things which I need to touch in jpg/tiff (post conversion). One of them would be red-eye which I almost never see. Another would be things that require advanced layering. alpha channel transparencies, and special effects.

erichlund
07-19-2007, 10:43 AM
You have me pegged. However, I do use a "lesser" converter that does recognize and (if you choose) defaults to some camera settings for processing.

However, according to my experience, as well as research, sharpening should be one of the last things applied to an image. Especially when it comes to shots that require any noise reduction for instance. Some NR software (including Noise Ninja which ships with my converter) will work on the raw images, and will take into consideration sensor specific noise patterns and optimize the reduction based on this.

So I actually have configured my software to NOT apply sharpening.

I guess also I would just mention that the reason that I brought up this subject is because you mentioned in camera sharpening only. and you also stated that you shot raw.

I think that Capture NX is a decent software and has its place. I like the control points for instance. But if you tried out some of the "lesser" converters, you might find that some of them truly aren't "lesser". I keep toying with the idea of adding Capture to my setup, but generally, it might make only a slight positive difference in my workflow under certain specific circumstances (mostly for the control points and how easy they are to use). Bibble (which is what I use primarily) has a tremendous customizeable workflow AND it does a very good job, AND allows many edits in the raw workflow that Capture users will have to convert, and then adjust in another software. Since using Bibble, there are very few things which I need to touch in jpg/tiff (post conversion). One of them would be red-eye which I almost never see. Another would be things that require advanced layering. alpha channel transparencies, and special effects.
Workflow was the one area that Nikon really did not fully address with Capture NX. They were supposed to by a combination of Capture NX and Nikon View Pro. However, the latter seems to have been shelved, which is a shame.

When I compare the feature sets of both Bibble and Capture NX, it looks like 90+% is common to both. Bibble has a few things Capture doesn't and Capture has a few things Bibble doesn't. In particular, the integrated Noise Ninja is very nice (Nikon has integrated noise reduction which is competent, but just, and not nearly as sophisticated as NN), and the plugins are nice (though they seem to mostly be things I have ways to do in NX). Capture also doesn't integrate into photoshop, but that just saves me the $600+ of buying photoshop ;). Frankly, I almost never need to do any work in Paint Shop Pro since I started using Capture NX.

In fact, the one real advantage I see in Bibble, besides the workflow tools, is the support for integrated tools like PTL Lens and NN. And, it seems they are going to have to go it alone on the PTL Lens front.

I will look into the program when I get back from my vacation, but I'm just not sure I'm willing to give up the complete camera modeling integration and my control points.

Oh, I guess I didn't mention that before. You see, Capture NX loads a RAW file as the RAW data and the complete EXIF data. The image is presented with the EXIF data fully editable in the form you would use it in camera, so it's like having a virtual camera in the software. Don't like the saturation setting I used in the camera -> then just change from the as shot value to any of the possible camera settings OR goto the saturation tools and tweak it if I only need to change it a little. Basically, if you shoot in RAW, the only real mistake you can make is if you get basic exposure outside of the latitude for the software to fix. Even EV, within limits, has some latitude for change (this is why some people can use a single shot in Capture for HDR input, though there's not as much latitude as using separate exposures).

I my experience, when I've tried the other editors (I've not used Bibble), there are some nice features, but they don't give me that virtual camera feel that I get with Capture (including 4 and NX).

erichlund
07-19-2007, 11:00 AM
I guess I should make one point before we get too excited about what these photos are. I was spending a nice day at the fair with my wife. I wanted to also play with these two new lenses to see what sort of possibilities they give me, but this was not a dedicated shoot to test the lenses. In fact, it wasn't until I got home that I realized I had this nice sequence to show the differences in range. I did not intend to really demonstrate the limits of what the lenses were capable of. If you knew me, you would know I'm just not serious enough to go out and do that. That's what Jeff and other testers are for.

For instance, if I were really going to test the 12-24 at 12mm, I would set it on a tripod and shoot it from wide open at 1 stop intervals until it was at the smallest aperture. I may still do that, but only if I'm REALLY bored. I'd also shoot front, side and backlit scenes. Sidelit so I can test the effects of a polarizer across the scene. Backlit so I can test CA and flare and ghosting. I'd shoot a rectangular object that nearly fills the frame, both on and off axis to test the correctability of the lenses distortion. Dang, this is starting to sound like work.;)

wh0128
07-19-2007, 07:05 PM
It almost read like you and tcadwall were going at each other. Capture NX vs. Bibble. lol

I'd be glad for you to do the testing of the 12-24 erich;). jk.

Again, great shots and still very sharp. Too bad I have to save for a Europe (Italy, France, London) trip in '08.

coldrain
07-20-2007, 05:46 AM
Noooo don't go traveling without an ultra wide like the Tokina 12-24mm... They are MADE for traveling photopgraphy. You will thank yourself when you bring one along...

Rooz
07-20-2007, 06:08 AM
i have had this discussion with tc before and i got a hold of bibble. i have been using bibble more and more for alot of pics that i consider average in photographic merit so to speak. your run of the mill snapshots for the web or smaller prints etc.

with my "keepers" though, the ones i really love and want to blow up in size or get the very best result from then i use NX cos the IQ i can get out of it is better. the raw adjustability is better, the control points and d-lighting are better, the sharpening is better, the colour manipulation and curves are better, the B&W conversions are nicer etc.

so why do i use bibble ? well basically cos bibble is FAST. i am using it more and more becasue the frustration i have with NX's speed and hung app every now and then is just so goddam painful it's almost not worth the aggravation.

tcadwall
07-20-2007, 06:37 AM
hmmm maybe I WILL have to spring for the NX... But I gotta say, even printing large shots I don't think I am missing anything. BTW Rooz, there are two b&w converters. Not sure if you used them both yet. But they both have their place, and I have found that sometimes one is what I need and sometimes it is the other. Of course, you could always save as a .tiff (in color), and then convert in your secondary editor.... But can't say I ever do that. I have even used the repair tool in Bibble to remove poles, etc. But it really can be a little quirky. I have figured out how to use it and make the changes stick, but if you don't do it in the right sequence it gives poor results. (a bug) I don't think I have any IQ problems, but the UI does appear to be a little more geared to "power - user" meaning that you have a lot of control, and that can be good or that can be be less than good. It takes some time to get into it to where you can pull the most out of an image.

But the control points, as I mentioned are just sooo tempting. However, I just hate installing software that has a reputation of being unstable, and then un-installing, cleaning the registry, cleaning the registry again, and crossing my fingers that the uninstall worked properly.

Another tip - if you change the default settings in Bibble to NOT apply so much off the bat, you might be happier. I was. You can always make your adjustments for one picture, and then copy/paste the settings to all similar pictures. But keep in mind that if you do that to an image you rotated, you will end up rotating all... Of course you can copy / paste specific settings as well.


As far as a war... Absolutely don't mean to come across that way. Sorry if I did. I just like the app a lot - and I also like to be helpful. When I was looking for raw software, I didn't see too many people giving an opinion on the application here, so I just went with 3rd party reviews. I am happy with the choice, and think that others would like it as well. Now, I am also a PaintShop Pro user. Have been using it since it was JASC shareware. (I think over 10 years) When people talk about Adobe how-to's I can follow the tutorials and get the same results. I spent a minute fraction of $ on PSP vs the Adobe counterparts. So... I guess I am a rebel.

I also apologize for contributing to getting this thread SOOOO far off topic! We should start another thread if we want to continue...

Rooz
07-20-2007, 07:06 AM
Noooo don't go traveling without an ultra wide like the Tokina 12-24mm... They are MADE for traveling photopgraphy. You will thank yourself when you bring one along...

awesome montage.

Rooz
07-20-2007, 07:09 AM
hmmm maybe I WILL have to spring for the NX.

you're so used to bibble's speed and stability i think installing NX may lead to you throwing your laptop out the window or at the very least taking to it with a hammer. :p