# New Tokina AF 16-28 F/2.8 AT-X Pro SD FX - Focus Pocus



## FlowerPhotog (Feb 10, 2013)

I finally decided which UWA lens to get for my 5DM3 and took delivery yesterday of the Tokina 16-28. I made that decision based on the large number of positive reviews I'd read. I especially wanted it for its sharpness edge to edge, as I'm not getting that with my current widest lens, the 24-105 kit lens. The Tokina is a nice solid, heavy lens that appears to be well made. I took it out to my normal lens testing spot this morning, on a tripod, cable release, etc running a large number of shots at multiple apertures, focal lengths etc. 

My problem is two-fold, which are probably related. In Live-View mode the lens just won't ever come to a focus - occasionally it appears to lock-on, but I can tell looking at the screen that it didn't lock on in-focus. It was a bright sunny day, so it isn't a lack of light issue. I don't use Live-View focusing that often, but wanted to compare the focus with the standard viewfinder focus, to see if any AFMA was going to be necessary. Since I couldn't get Live-View focus to work, I did the next best thing, which was to use the Live-View mode, go to 10X magnification and manually focus. The Tokina has a unique method of switching the lens from AF to MF - you slide a ring on the lens. What I found has me stumped. I was focusing on a rock outcrop probably 50 or more yards away in the center of the shot. Both the manual and autofocus were in pretty good agreement in the center of the image, although the widest-aperture shots, 2.8 and 4.0, were better in manual focus, suggesting some minor AFMA is going necessary. The problem is with the sides of the image. Regardless of focal length, or aperture, the left side of the image would be blurry using manual focus, and the right side would be sharp, the AF images were just reversed, ie the left would be sharp and the right would be blurry. It isn't a depth of field issue (at 16mm most everything at f8.0 should be in focus), and the out of focus sides are both near and far objects in both cases. I had my old trusty t2i along with me so did the same set of tests with it. Same problem in that it would never focus itself using Live-View. Again comparing Live View zoomed manual focus vs viewfinder focus, one side is sharp and one fuzzy, with the sides flip-flopping depending on focus method. It's almost as if there is a out of alignment element that gets moved out of alignment the opposite direction when shifting from MF to AF. 

Has anyone who owns this lens seen this sort of problem? I'm pretty sure I'm going to send this back and see if I just got a bad copy, unless someone here has a suggestion in the next day or two.


----------



## ageha (Feb 10, 2013)

FlowerPhotog said:


> I finally decided which UWA lens to get for my 5DM3 and took delivery yesterday of the Tokina 16-28. I made that decision based on the large number of positive reviews I'd read. I especially wanted it for its sharpness edge to edge, as I'm not getting that with my current widest lens, the 24-105 kit lens. The Tokina is a nice solid, heavy lens that appears to be well made. I took it out to my normal lens testing spot this morning, on a tripod, cable release, etc running a large number of shots at multiple apertures, focal lengths etc.
> 
> My problem is two-fold, which are probably related. In Live-View mode the lens just won't ever come to a focus - occasionally it appears to lock-on, but I can tell looking at the screen that it didn't lock on in-focus. It was a bright sunny day, so it isn't a lack of light issue. I don't use Live-View focusing that often, but wanted to compare the focus with the standard viewfinder focus, to see if any AFMA was going to be necessary. Since I couldn't get Live-View focus to work, I did the next best thing, which was to use the Live-View mode, go to 10X magnification and manually focus. The Tokina has a unique method of switching the lens from AF to MF - you slide a ring on the lens. What I found has me stumped. I was focusing on a rock outcrop probably 50 or more yards away in the center of the shot. Both the manual and autofocus were in pretty good agreement in the center of the image, although the widest-aperture shots, 2.8 and 4.0, were better in manual focus, suggesting some minor AFMA is going necessary. The problem is with the sides of the image. Regardless of focal length, or aperture, the left side of the image would be blurry using manual focus, and the right side would be sharp, the AF images were just reversed, ie the left would be sharp and the right would be blurry. It isn't a depth of field issue (at 16mm most everything at f8.0 should be in focus), and the out of focus sides are both near and far objects in both cases. I had my old trusty t2i along with me so did the same set of tests with it. Same problem in that it would never focus itself using Live-View. Again comparing Live View zoomed manual focus vs viewfinder focus, one side is sharp and one fuzzy, with the sides flip-flopping depending on focus method. It's almost as if there is a out of alignment element that gets moved out of alignment the opposite direction when shifting from MF to AF.
> 
> Has anyone who owns this lens seen this sort of problem? I'm pretty sure I'm going to send this back and see if I just got a bad copy, unless someone here has a suggestion in the next day or two.


I don't own that lens but was looking at it today, it didn't really impress me. It might be a decent lens if you get a good copy but in your case I would definitely send it back right away.


----------



## R1-7D (Feb 10, 2013)

I just bought this lens myself less than a week ago. I will try to replicate your steps tomorrow morning and report on my findings. 

So far I am really enjoying my copy. It's an incredibly impressive lens for the money, besting the EF 16-35mm II in sharpness.


----------



## John Thomas (Feb 10, 2013)

Had the lens from almost a year. Used it very often in a great range of situations (lightning, composition etc.) on two bodies (1DsMk2 and 5DMk3), apertures ranging from 2.8 till... I don't know (16?... 22?) with the AF point almost everywhere, used with MF also in enough situations (last time 30 minutes ago in a big photo report) and I did not see what you're experiencing. 

Yes, on 5D3 it needed AFMA. Also, at f/2.8 even if the center is very good the margins are a little bit soft, but this is quite normal for this class (in fact, I found Tokina's sharpness best for it's class). The corners start to catch up immediately from f/3.2 - 4 and become very good at f/5.6. From there on, I don't know anymore... 

Just my2c & HTH


----------



## pedro (Feb 10, 2013)

John Thomas said:


> Had the lens from almost a year. Used it very often in a great range of situations (lightning, composition etc.) on two bodies (1DsMk2 and 5DMk3), apertures ranging from 2.8 till... I don't know (16?... 22?) with the AF point almost everywhere, used with MF also in enough situations (last time 30 minutes ago in a big photo report) and I did not see what you're experiencing.
> 
> Yes, on 5D3 it needed AFMA. Also, at f/2.8 even if the center is very good the margins are a little bit soft, but this is quite normal for this class (in fact, I found Tokina's sharpness best for it's class). The corners start to catch up immediately from f/3.2 - 4 and become very good at f/5.6. From there on, I don't know anymore...
> 
> Just my2c & HTH



Your experience refers quite a bit to the photozone.de findings. After reading this it kept me from going for it. Even though 28 mm on the long end would come very close to my photography preferences in nightsky shooting. 28mm on the long end would yield at least 20 to 22 sec of exposure applying 600 rule (600:28 = exposure before startrails become evident).
Photozone reported, they got a few lemons while testing the copies and that made me hesitate a bit more.
Glad to hear that your experience is good so far. Here's the photozone link. 
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff
It is in english and I appreciate their review. Guess I'll go for the classic 16-35 range instead...As it offers the possibilty to mount an ND 10 filter for ultra long daytime exposures as well 8) Cheers, Pedro.


----------



## AdamJ (Feb 10, 2013)

It sounds very much like a decentering issue - one of the lens elements isn't aligned perfectly straight left-to-right. Send it back.


----------



## R1-7D (Feb 10, 2013)

I just tried my lens. I had no trouble focusing in live view mode at all. It locked on, no problem. I also tried manually focusing the lens to see if I could replicate your problem with half the image being out of focus. I couldn't. 

I think you unfortunately got a bad copy of the lens. I would send it back and get a replacement. It is a spectacular lens and you'll truly love it when you get this sorted out. Even Canon has the occasional problem with their lenses. Don't let this get you down.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2013)

Thats a shame that you got a bad one. Tokina has well built lenses and are gppd at wide angle, but the quality variations reported for this lens makes me think that it is very difficult to build and aligh properly, and just a little bit out of tolerance makes for a poor image.


----------



## FlowerPhotog (Mar 17, 2013)

I did send the Tokina 16-28 back for an exchange a few weeks ago, but as luck would have it, the lens was on back-order. Finally got the replacement a couple of days ago, and took it out today for a good workout. Much much better than the first copy. Very sharp in the center at all apertures, and stopped down a bit, both edges are pretty sharp whether manually focusing or viewfinder autofocusing. Looks like the extreme right edge may require stopping down a smidgen more than the left, ie maybe to 7.1 or 8.0 whereas the left is sharp once you get to 5.6. This is really pixel peeping at 100%, as at 50% you can't see any difference. Overall the images appear sharp across the entire frame, unlike the first copy which had a very fuzzy edge that would flip-flop depending on whether manual or autofocusing. 

This one still doesn't seem to want to Live-View autofocus on my 5dM3 - but seems to work somewhat on the t2i. I did note the Photozone review referenced earlier in the thread did make mention of the liveview autofocus being problematic. I don't use Live-View autofocus much, so I'm not going to send this copy back. While waiting to get this second copy, I had actually contemplated keeping this one even if the viewfinder AF was iffy, as long as the manual focus images were sharp edge to edge. I've got the Zeiss 50 f/2.0, which I've learned to manually focus with no problems, so figured if the Photozone numbers were right and this lens is as sharp as the Zeiss 21 f2.8, then I'd have an equivalent sharpness manual focus lens for about 1/3rd the price and a wider range of focal lengths to chose from. Turns out I don't need to use it just as manual focus - so even more bang for the buck! I realize this lens isn't built like the Zeiss or may not have the magical qualities of the good Zeiss lenses, but based on the pictures I took today, I'm pretty satisfied with the Tokina. 

At 24 mm the Tokina wipes the floor with my Canon 24-105, which was my original motivation to get the lens, as the 24-105 leaves a lot to be desired at it's widest end. My copy of that lens seems to have it's peak performance around 35 to 40 mm, and goes downhill above and below that. 

Next weekend I plan on borrowing my wife's EF-S 10-22 and will run some comparisons with it and the Tokina at the equivalent focal lengths on my t2i.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Mar 20, 2013)

My copy worked very good on the 5d2; still very good on the 1d4 and the 5d3.
Tried before the redringed 17-40 and the 16-35II, both had horrible soft corners, the 17-40 also heavy chromatic abberations....


----------

