Ultra-Wide 17mm Lens Comparison

Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 - Tokina 17mm f/3.5 - Spiratone 18mm f/3.5

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 17-35mm

Tokina 17mm

Analysis

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.

Tokina 17mm f/3.5 AT-X Pro Ultrawide

When I began making photos, some years back, I remember finding myself always trying to pull back from my composition. I couldn't get enough in the frame. My first lens was actually a cheap-o kit lens made by Quantaray, a 28-90mm. I recall vividly looking at images made with true wide-angle lenses such as a 24 or even a 20mm. Well I didn't have any money so I worked with what I had for some time. I did however decide on two variables by which I would choose my next lenses. I wanted a wide lens, and I wanted a fast lens (no surpise there!).

I love a good 17mm perspective. 20mm isn't bad, but I can't help but want that little extra "zing". For my first 17mm lens, I was fed up with subpar optics, was now majoring in photography and decided to go big. The Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 made all the sense to me. According to all the reviews, it was the tried-and-true choice of the nikon photojournalists and photographers world-wide. I also liked that it was a full frame optic, able to be used on my film cameras as well as a full frame digital (though at the time I was using a D200). Actually I struggled with the decision because I wanted a really wide lens but didn't want to buy into the DX lenses because then (and even now) I just didn't forsee myself staying with an APS-C size sensor forever. My DX lenses would then be useless. I still wouldn't buy a DX lens even if I wasn't shooting a FF camera. So basically, I picked up the Nikon 17-35mm and its been an excellent performer.

So why the Tokina 17mm? What the heck do you need another 17mm for? Well to be completely truthful, my only complaint about the 17-35mm is it is a HUGE piece of glass. Especially when, after a few years of use, I notice I really only tend to use the 17mm end of the lens. So I began wondering if there might be another option. A lighter, perhaps more inexpensive lens which could serve the same purpose and be a tad more convenient. Tokina has always been a go-to company for me, in terms of third-party manufacturers, and wouldn't you know it, they make an auto-focus 17mm lens!

Tokina 17mm f/3.5 AT-X Pro

Mount availability:	Canon EOS, Minolta AF, Nikon-D,
Maximum aperture:	f/3.5
Minimum aperture:	f/22
Optical construction:	11 Elements / 9 Groups
Coatings:	Multi-layer
Angle of view:	103°40'
Minimum focus distance:	0.25m (0.82ft)
Focusing system:	Internal Focusing System
Number of diaphragm blades:	8
Filter size:	77mm
Maximum outer diameter:	88mm (3.3")
Overall length:	65mm (2.6")
Weight:	440g (15.5oz)
Accessories, included:	Dedicated lens hood, fitted soft case
Lens Hood	BH773

Specifications directly from Tokina's website.

Physical Attributes


Like Tokina's other AT-X Pro line lenses, such as the 28-70mm f/2.8 reviewed here, this lens bears the same crinkle finish covering the exterior of the lens. Love this. All around, it feels like a solid tool. This truly is one of Tokina's most popular aspects, the build quality. Being part of the older AT-X pro (this lens has since been discontinued), the manual focus is enabled through a clutch mechanism within the focusing ring. Probably one of the biggest complaints about these lenses has to do with the fact that even after you successully align the focus ring to the right orientation, so you can pull it back into the MF position, you still have to switch your camera to MF as well. A relatively inconvenient method. On newer AT-X lenses (such as the 100mm f/2.8 macro), I believe Tokina has addressed part of this issue by allowing the user to pull back the focus ring at any point in its rotation. MF issues aside, the 17mm is a solidly built, all metal lens. P.S. the 17mm takes Tokina's BH-773 hood (so does the Tokina 28-70mm). It's a fairly rare hood. Be sure if you're picking one of these up, you try to get one with the hood because "good luck finding one".

Performance

To discuss performance, I did a comparison between the Spiratone 18mm f/3.5 (Tokina made), Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8, and this Tokina 17mm f/3.5. I think it provides a pretty clear and concise visual of the capabilities of this lens, relative to something 1/3 its cost as well as something 3x its cost (that worked out nicely).

Wrap Up

Ok, so there is good reason why the Nikon costs what it does. It truly is a stellar performer. But the Tokina is no slouch. Despite some more than average CA the 17mm provides some sharp, contrasty images. As usual, the company has produced a solid piece of equipment especially considering the price point. (This lens will typically run you somewhere around $300+ I believe. Price may actually be on the rise as this lens is discontinued and FF cameras are becoming much more common.) I especially find the size to be most convenient. If you have a crack at one, I would recommend picking it up without a second thought! It certainly doesn't appear to lose its value.

Links

A very good in-depth look at the Tokina 17mm
Photozone's review with great info on the MTF and CA performance of the Tokina 17mm AT-X
Shashinki Review of the Tokina 17mm

Using 35mm lenses on the Panasonic GF1

So in continuing with the previous post about the new micro four thirds system (m4/3), I thought, as always, it's best to demonstrate results rather than just talk about them. As soon as I heard about the GF1's ability to record 720p HD video, I immediately thought of my Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 lens. Not only will I, with the correct adapter, be able to shoot tac sharp macro stills with this little guy; I can also record live action on a macro level. National Geographic style right? Ok well, maybe not THAT good, but pretty excellent quality.

Adapters



One thing I feel necessary to address, due to my own curiosity, is the adapters. Since the release of the m4/3 system, more and more adapters for virtually any camera lens mount ever made, are appearing. The biggest problem, I feel is the complete lack of information on most of them. It seems many are being manufactured in China and being sold on eBay. Sure they boast of their supreme "quality" and all but like most other products, those that shout the loudest are typically compensating for their utter or complete lack. Unfortunately, I have little insight to offer on these adapters. For Christmas, my family bought the GF1 and a Nikon F mount t0 m4/3 adapter for me. They got it from amazon and it appears to be made by "fotodiox". It looks like it cost about $75 too. After some use, it seems a tad loose on the nikon mount side. Also, when locked into place, the nikon lens scale is slightly off center, in relation to the top of the camera (I made this mistake when I rigged a nikon adapter for my old Vivitar Series 1 105mm in MD mount. I JB welded the two parts without remembering to align them so the distance scale would face topside.) More importantly, if a lens, such as the Vivitar 90mm, has a built-in tripod mount, the camera now sits at an angle and the tripod must be adjusted to compensate for a level shot. But these mounts are "precision" made, you say. The other thing I am noticing is that while many of the mounts go for between $35-75 USD, some companies are making them and selling them well into the $100 range, sometimes for a little over $200! Again, lack of detailed imagery leaves me with very little insight into just why these miniature rings of metal command such a premium price. I can't believe just because (if they do at all) something like aligning the distance scale would make the adapter so much more costly. Materials may be one explanation but again, they all claim similar builds. One may just be actually doing it, while the other "claims" it. I know Voigtlander appears to make a pretty solid m4/3 adapter for their Leica M mount lenses. Once again though I surmise this purely based on a better image of the product and a good experience with the companies other equipment. That adapter runs a hefty price too. I suppose, in the end, my finances being what they are, I can live with the cheaper adapter!



Above is the GF1 with the Vivitar Series 1 90mm macro, 1:1 converter, and m4/3 adapter.

Test Shots

I own this camera because I have ultimate versatility with lenses. That being said, I have to take special care using these 35mm lenses, especially something like these Series 1 lenses, being that they weigh over 1 lb. while the camera relatively speaking, feels like a feather. You will want to take care and support the lens primarily so as not to damage the mount.

GF1 Test Reel from David Kovaluk on Vimeo.

This is a small test reel I pulled together from the past couple weeks of shooting. I threw in a favorite song by The Books. If you haven't listened to them before, they make music using clips, found sounds, invented and traditional instruments, and anything else they can get their hands on.

I have not done a whole lot of video work, as is most likely evident in this reel. In the first sequence, I was hand holding the camera just above steering wheel. The fog was out in force that day as I was on my way to work and I spontaneously decided I should get a shot crossing the bridge. Regarding the macro shots of the shrimp, they were taken with my Series 1 90mm through the glass of my small aquarium. My tank is actually a thick glass cylindrical vase, which I have converted into an underwater habitat. The glass actually has (what appear to be) part lines and its thickness is relatively uneven. In filming the little guys I often see "warbling" going on as I pan the camera across the glass. I'm not blaming all my poor camera work on this, but most of it haha!


Below is the new and improved shrimp abode, complete with three new inhabitants: algae eaters.


Side Note: Above is actually the first iteration of my shrimp tank concept. I don't have an image (and am currently away from the house) of version two, where the filter is nearer the top and a large piece of driftwood fills out the central region giving the shrimp a little more to play on. Version 1 also failed because the shrimp kept sneaking down into the filter by slipping past the tray on which the gravel and moss balls sit. I didn't think there would be enough room...ha!

Stills

In terms of still images, the GF1 performs just as one would expect, excellent (just as long as you are using a great piece of glass to begin with). I will say, in its "natural" setting, which is where I typically use it, the images come out less saturated than on the neutral setting of my D700. I shoot this way because on the vivid setting, I find the images come out too bold and tend to break down quickly. I shoot RAW + .jpg right now despite not being able to process RAW efficiently (I need a newer CS version).

Using the Vivitar 90mm, I have made a still of the Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 lens and a 100% crop, as well as a crop from an image of my newly acquired Mamiya 65mm f/3.5 TLR lens (Blue dot). Picked it up for $15 on craigslist in very clean condition with a slightly gnarled top filter thread, still accepts filters though! Actually, I had the Mamiya c220 and sold it some time back but have been wanting another just because I loved using it. I suppose now I have an excuse...(don't tell the girlfriend!) In case she reads this, I won't be buying it any time soon.




I first image was made at f/4. I can't get over how much I love that 90mm lens. It's my favorite lens I have ever owned. The Mamiya image was made at a higher f/stop, f/8 I believe. I posted it because I feel it a good representation of the kind of crisp detail the GF1 delivers right out of the camera! These images have only been minorly retouched (a bit of curve added for contrast and some color boost, also a piece of dust or two removed because I hate dust).

I have also used the Nikon AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 lens on this camera as well as with the added TC-201 MF 2x teleconverter. With the lens alone images look great! Once the teleconverter is on, things fall apart. Not that the GF1 has anything to do with that. These cameras have a 2x crop factor making my 200mm, a 400mm tele.

Conclusion

Not that there was much going on in this write-up in terms of the unsolved. Just wanted to show a few examples of how versatile these cameras truly are, and the kind of quality one can get out of them even when using them in non-traditional fashions. I am crazy about the micro four thirds concept and really hope they continue to develop and support it!

Don't Make Me Go

Just felt like posting but I don't have any of my equipment related stuff completed just yet so...Dreading this drive to work has been on my mind lately. I just really don't want to make it anymore. 35+ miles which takes nearly 45 minutes to an hour. It's time for a change.

The Abduction

They came from above,

amidst a fog that loomed for days.

Our curiosity like that of an insect,

we were taken.

The Micro Four Thirds System - The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1

As soon as I first read about this camera I was hooked. The concept seems simple enough, something I (and I am sure many others) have dreamt about since joining the digital revolution. Sometimes to the extreme, "Just give me a sensor and a shutter, that I can stick an optic on!" Whatever the case, Panasonic's GF1 fulfills a niche, a need really, within my camera kit, the joy of which I can hardly begin to describe (a little over the top? I'm sorry, I swear this thing is just that cool!).

Micro Four Thirds and the Camera Continuum:

After having shot film for a substantial number of years (not nearly as many, relative to others, considering my age) my first digital camera was a DSLR, a Canon XTi to be exact. While looking for my first digital camera, I of course initially began looking at compact point and shoots (P&S). Being that the price of DSLRs was so much higher compared to P&Ss, I figured it would be a good intro into the world of digital while, depending on the model, affording me some creative tools to continue making images in a similar fashion to what I was currently used to. Not so. In fact, it was nothing short of impossible for me to fathom surrendering the many fully manual functions I possessed within my DSLR, in a considerably less expensive P&S. So in narrowing down my decisions, I kept ending up back at cameras like the Canon Powershot G series, or something similarly near a $500 pricetag. Well for that kind of money, I could get an entry level DSLR!

I became discouraged from buying a P&S further by the fact that their performance. Even those with the full manual controls, paled in comparison to the DSLRs. Now at the time, it wasn't a huge deal. Size wasn't really a concern and being the tech junkie that I was (and still am) I thought, "I actually WANT one of those beastly looking tank cameras!" Not that I am overcompensating...Just liked the idea of having a solid, robust piece of machinery in my hand.

In any case! I ended up going the route of the DSLR. No regrets, never looked back. For most tasks, nothing compares in quality, to date (though it seems that is changing). I have continued to have a hard time justifying forking over $500+ for a P&S sidekick camera, that will only leave me grabbing the DSLR to get what I need. It wasn't until I began doing some photojournalism that I really began questioning the DSLR. I was actually finding that despite its creative superiority, it's size was a big problem (no pun...). People often altered their behavior upon seeing it. That coveted cloak of invisibility to preserve journalistic accuracy only became more illusive. People did not seem to mind, however, seeing me with a small P&S camera. Well on a bright, clear day under average conditions, with a modest output size (4x6 print, web image), a P&S can produce some very nice images. So I picked up a Canon G9 gave it a try. I found it to be a very reliable camera, as well as discreet. The lack of mirror box allowed me to take nearly silent shots, in comparison to the thundering clack of the DSLR. Still, the G9 (as well as almost all P&Ss) had some shutter lag, lacked any real burst capabilities, had a fixed lens. Worse yet, it performed fairly sketchy beyond ISO 800. Well humans have made do with what they had for thousands of years and I'm certainly not here to complain. Technology just wasn't there yet.

Enter the "Poor Man's Digital Leica":


The Micro Four Thirds System is great. Let me first just say, the GF1 is by no means perfect nor is it the "end-all be-all". Along with Olympus's EP1 and EP2, it represents a revolutionary new niche in digital photography. One that is empowering, as well as affordable (unlike the supremely expensive Leica M9, $7000 worth of awesomeness). My excitement is probably more directly related to the conceptual implications the Micro Four Thirds System represents.

I will delve further into the specifics with some ISO comparisons and more DIY projects involving the GF1 in the future. But generally what does the Micro Four Thirds System (M43) have to offer? The M43 system is based on the Four Thirds System developed by Olympus. With the M43 system, you get basically, a Four Thirds sensor (that is roughly 30% smaller than an APS-C sensor, and a 2x crop factor, same as the Four Thirds System cameras), in a thin pocketable body. The mount is called a Micro Four Thirds mount. It is smaller than the standard Four Thirds mount and lenses from the latter are compatible through an adapter.

Why It Matters:

The sensor in these cameras is 9x that of standard P&S. Larger sensor, means larger photo sensors in the chip as well as shallower depth of field capabilities. ISO performance is much better than P&Ss. The camera itself has DSLR-like shutter lag, hardly any. Burst modes. Relatively quiet. And most important of all, because of its lack of a mirror box the flange to sensor distance is short enough, with the right adapter, virtually any and every lens ever made for a film camera can be used on this camera.

The bundled Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 Pancake lens is a compact gem of a lens that gives the beautiful shallow DOF feel of a DSLR or even the older film compacts.


Of the various options currently available in the M43 system, it seems the GF1 is the most capable and well thought out at this point. Plus, the bundled 20mm f/1.7 was a big sale point for me. In getting a small camera such as this, having an ability to utilize depth of field is incredible.

Changing the Way We Shoot:

I used to lug my D700 around everywhere, just in case something came up. I love making images. The P&S was just convenient but in the end I was often looking for more in the images that came out of it. New cameras like the M43 cameras, or Ricoh's new GXR are redefining how we think of compacts. Utilizing the newest technology, these companies are putting the power of the DSLR is our hands, without the weight, social impedence, or just outright inconvenience. Take as you will, but it is happening. I for one, am embracing full heartedly. The images are still made by the photographer, no matter how large or small the camera is.

Links:

Wikipedia's article on the Micro Four Thirds System

DPreview - Panasonic GF1

Belated Seasons Greetings

Early Morning - 20mm f5.6 1/3200 @ ISO 100

Well it has been exactly one month since my last post. I certainly do have some catching up to do. I wish I could say it was because I was off on some exotic vacation but that simply isn't so. The truth is I have just been very busy and directed much of my free time towards enjoying the company of those dear to me. All in all it was a wonderful, relaxing holiday season.

I had an excellent christmas this year not only because it is always great to get some real time to kick it with my family but also because despite a rather dry winter, we got snow on Christmas morning. To add to it all Santa read up on his camera gear this year.

As of this season, I have am a proud member of an up and coming camera system. No, I haven't gone to the dark side...(cough, CANON!). Although, I would love a 5D mk II but shh, don't tell anyone! After much reading/lusting/deliberation I came to the conclusion that while the micro four thirds (M43) cameras may not be quite there yet, I simply couldn't help myself. The portability, superiority over traditional digital compacts, and the adaptable mount. The possibilities seem endless. Not to mention that fact, that even if the GF1 isn't the perfect solution, I feel the glass is here to stay. I looked long and hard between the GF1, the Olympus EP1, and even the newer EP2. I scoured rumor forums in attempt to glean whether something newer and further improved was imminent. Still the GF1 seemed to reign in as an excellent piece of hardware. As with any new endeavor, the m43 system is not perfect and more than that, still quite expensive in relation to the DSLR market. Not having a lot of money was certainly the only factor holding me back.

Well my loved ones did it for me. And I have to say I'm extremely impressed! I'm thrilled! While these little cameras definitely have some kinks to be worked out and by no means replace the DSLRs in terms of quality, they open all kinds of new doors in the world of photography, not imaginable since the invention of the 35mm rangefinder!

I have a lot of posting to do and catching up in terms of promised comparisons, some of which will be largely aided by the GF1. And I plan on going into more depth/practicality discussion over the GF1 in my next post. Because, to be quite honest, this camera has been out for some time. This blog isn't about the newest and latest and greatest. I couldn't afford that, haha! It is just someone else's point of view and hopefully supplementary to what you have already read.

Below are just a few examples I have made thus far with the Panasonic GF1 and the 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens. They have been bumped a tad with some curves and a bit of saturation as I find when I post these to the web, they are significantly desaturated. All were shot in .jpg as well as mostly on aperture priority and auto ISO.

Ashley - 20mm f1.7 1/60 @ ISO 640

Frost - 20mm f/4.0 1/1600 @ ISO 100

Jana - 20mm f1.7 1/60 @ ISO 800