To fulfill my curiosities, including my inquiry as to whether an alternative to the Nikon 17-35mm existed, which still retained relatively good image quality but was of considerably smaller size and cost, I did a quick comparison of a couple other ultra-wides I have picked up over the past few months.
I just took the trio out to the deck, took shots with each lens at every aperture, slightly adjusted exposures (same adjustment for every shot by any one lens) because each lens appears to have a mind of its own. Also, the conditions probably weren't optimal but I do what I can when I have the time. **I have made some changed since my first posting of this.** It was up a whole 8 hours before I decided, I really need to take a closer look for this comparison to mean anything. Originally, the exposures seemed all over the place. I was looking at the histograms and the detail shots side-by-side trying to understand what was happening. I figured it out! Just a user error on my part. Forgot a step with one batch and it threw off the others. Either way, the sample images just looked muddy and underexposed. After some tweaking I have the images where they should be for optimal comparison. Still the Tokina does tend to need just a bit more exposure compensation (which I have done) than the Nikon, but nothing too severe. Likewise, the Spiratone is really just here to demonstrate what you can expect out of an older MF $100 ultrawide. I did all global changes and only in batches per lens (I performed no alterations on any one single frame or portion of a frame). I then sampled a small square from the center and near the bottom right corner.
My results can be seen below:
f/2.8
Nikon 17-35mm
f/3.5
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mm
f/4
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mm
f/5.6
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mm
f/8
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mm
f/11
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mm
f/16
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mm
f/22
Nikon 17-35mmf/3.5
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mmf/4
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mmf/5.6
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mmf/8
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mmf/11
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mmf/16
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mm
Spiratone 18mmf/22
Nikon 17-35mm
Tokina 17mmAnalysis
After really taking a look at the results, I am actually even more happy with the nikon 17-35mm. It is an amazing lens. The Tokina does continue to defend the company's reputation of quality glass, however. I am actually amazed at how well it holds up to the Nikon. Although here and in general use I have noticed it consistently underexposes images a bit (until I figure out why I can just compensate accordingly), it produces a crisp, contrasty image with good sharp detail. The CA is a bit of a problem but it often easily fixable in post. Also, I have noticed the light fall-off is more severe than the Nikon. As far as the spiratone, well for $100, you can get an ultra-wide field of view, but that may be about all. As much as I like this little lens, it just doesn't hold up here. Lacks quite a bit of contrast, severe CA, and probably a lot more. Also, as noted it my previous write up, it has an odd tendency to pull objects just outside the frame of the other 17mm lenses, into the frame. Such as the corner of the deck. A strange optical formula (and Tokina made actually!).
So? If you can afford it, and need the performance, the Nikon AF-S pro line costs a lot for a reason. These lenses do things right. If you are just looking for a solid lens, but don't mind some extra steps in post and can use the extra cash, the Tokina is quite the little gem. I'm sad to hear it has been discontinued so as I said before, if you see one, grab it! There is also an earlier version which has a built-in (or permanently attached rather) hood. From what I have read, the hearsay is that the formula is either very close to this pro version or the same altogether, just with the older body style. I haven't had the chance to check it out but it may very well perform equally to the pro.
I love ultrawides. They are just another optic that allows us to see things in a new, fresh way. Next stop, 14mm rectilinear.
After really taking a look at the results, I am actually even more happy with the nikon 17-35mm. It is an amazing lens. The Tokina does continue to defend the company's reputation of quality glass, however. I am actually amazed at how well it holds up to the Nikon. Although here and in general use I have noticed it consistently underexposes images a bit (until I figure out why I can just compensate accordingly), it produces a crisp, contrasty image with good sharp detail. The CA is a bit of a problem but it often easily fixable in post. Also, I have noticed the light fall-off is more severe than the Nikon. As far as the spiratone, well for $100, you can get an ultra-wide field of view, but that may be about all. As much as I like this little lens, it just doesn't hold up here. Lacks quite a bit of contrast, severe CA, and probably a lot more. Also, as noted it my previous write up, it has an odd tendency to pull objects just outside the frame of the other 17mm lenses, into the frame. Such as the corner of the deck. A strange optical formula (and Tokina made actually!).
So? If you can afford it, and need the performance, the Nikon AF-S pro line costs a lot for a reason. These lenses do things right. If you are just looking for a solid lens, but don't mind some extra steps in post and can use the extra cash, the Tokina is quite the little gem. I'm sad to hear it has been discontinued so as I said before, if you see one, grab it! There is also an earlier version which has a built-in (or permanently attached rather) hood. From what I have read, the hearsay is that the formula is either very close to this pro version or the same altogether, just with the older body style. I haven't had the chance to check it out but it may very well perform equally to the pro.
I love ultrawides. They are just another optic that allows us to see things in a new, fresh way. Next stop, 14mm rectilinear.
Hey David,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting comparison. That Tokina AT-X holds up very well against the Nikon Zoom. In fact, I'd have to say, based on your photos, that it at least equals the Nikon in center sharpness and contrast, and surpasses it in corner sharpness and contrast. The Nikon does appear to control CA a bit better, though, doesn't it?
I own an older Tokina-built Vivitar 17mm f/3.5 that I've been quite pleased with. It was probably built back in the late 70s or early 80s, I'm thinking. Haven't been able to test it with a DSLR because it's in Canon FD mount, and I shoot EOS DSLRs. But I have shot slides with it and my Canon F-1, and it exhibits very good sharpness, color and contrast. So whether the Vivitar version (s/n beginning with 37) or the Tokina one, it's worth considering if one runs across one for a good price. They can get fairly pricey on eBay -- as do most 17s.
I would say the Tokina bests the Nikon on corner sharpness and does have more contrast. I tend to like the more neutral look however. Just because I retouch almost every shot (I feel they can all benefit from some slight adjustments) and I like to start from a more neutral position. Sometimes I have also found the contrast the Tokina puts out, can even come off a bit harsh. But it is definitely a great little lens, especially considering the price!
ReplyDeleteI had one of the (previous) Spiratone 3.2 lenses. It was wide, yes, and that's why I bought it. Towards the edges it was dodgy, though. Also, it depended which edge you went toward. :-)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/mdarnton/6559257735/
Eventually I replaced it with an Olympus 21mm, which was a great lens.