Broaden Your Horizons!

With the Tokina 12-24mm Wide-angle Lens

W.H. Majoros
 


The Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X PRO SD IF DX lens in Canon EF mount.


This page is optimized for

NOTE: images on this page will appear too dark on Windows and Linux machines. 
If you're using Windows or Linux, please go to the gamma corrected version of this page by clicking HERE.



I got mine at Amazon, but you can also get it at Adorama or B&H.




As a bird photographer, the thought of using anything less than about 500mm of focal length rarely even crosses my mind.  Indeed, I'm much more comfortable in the 800-1200mm range, especially in Spring, when the warblers are flitting about in the canopy high above me.  There are times, however, when I suddenly realize that I've wandered into a stunningly scenic natural place which could itself make for a pleasing photo, if only I had the proper equipment for landscape photography.

In such cases I either trot out my trusty Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro lens, or simply ignore the opportunity altogether, since the effort of hauling my 800mm lens to such a location generally leaves me with too little energy to bother fishing out my macro lens from my camera bag and going through the trouble of attaching it to my camera.

Lately, however, I've become interested in wide-angle lenses for landscape photography, in part because I've always been a bit disappointed by the field-of-view of a 50mm lens on a crop body (1.6x for my old Canon 30D's and 1.3x for my new Canon EOS 1D Mark III's), and also in part because of the interesting "angular" or "fish-eye" effects I've seen people achieve at some of the super-wide focal lengths.  I decided to try out the Tokina 12-24mm AT-X PRO SD IF DX lens.  I figured 12mm was pretty goddamn wide, and the price on the lens was reasonably affordable (especially after factoring in the limited-time rebate).

A quick bit of research on DPREVIEW, FredMiranda.com, and other reputable websites suggested that this was a decent lens.  So I ordered it on Amazon.  The order was fulfilled by an Amazon merchant, 17th-street Photo, who expedited the shipment at no extra cost, so that I ended up receiving the package less than 48 hours after placing my order.  Sweet!

Here's the very first photo I shot with it:





This was taken at the 15mm setting on the lens' zoom, which on my 1.3x crop body is equivalent to about 19.5mm in full-frame (FF) terms.  As you can see, even at this moderate zoom setting the images take on a bit of a "fish-eye" character.  (Rest assured that my dog's head isn't really this big in relation to her body --- it's just an artifact of wide-angle photography). 

The other things you'll notice are that the lens is very sharp, and that it produces images with excellent color.  This should become even clearer after reviewing the other photos in this article.




Personally, I've never been interested in owning a fisheye lens.  Fisheye lenses are typically described as being (1) fun, and (2) of very limited practical use.  I tend to agree.  Note, however, that the Tokina 12-24 is not a true fisheye lens, at least not according to the product literature.  It's just a very wide angle lens.  According to Wikipedia, a fisheye lens is defined as simply a wide-angle lens in the 15-16mm range.  I think there's more to the definition than this, though.  The fisheye photos I've seen severely distort the rectilinear properties of the scene, so that straight lines become quite curved, especially around the periphery.  A super-wide-angle lens, on the other hand, shares the fisheye's tendency to disproportionately enlarge foreground objects, while lacking the fisheye's tendency toward unnatural curvature around the edges of the image.  In short, a wide-angle lens is simply a lens with a short focal length --- i.e., one which achieves a wide angle via lack of magnification, rather than through the sorts of extreme image distortion employed by a true fisheye lens.

This brings us to the issue of effective focal lengths.  On my crop body (a Canon EOS 1D Mark III), which has a 1.3x focal-length conversion factor, the effective focal lengths of this lens are approximately 16-31mm. (One can, of course, argue about the semantics of focal-length conversion factors versus sensor-based image cropping, but this would be of little practical value for the present article).  At the low end (16mm), that's definitely within the fisheye range, as attested by the two photos above.

As you can see from these sample images, at these focal lengths any sufficiently close foreground object becomes significantly magnified relative to the background, resulting in big-headed and big-nosed dogs (or, I suppose, big-headed and big-nosed family members if you were to take the lens to your family reunion --- but maybe that wouldn't be such a good idea...).

More generally, wide-angle lenses tend to distort the proportions, perspective, and linearity of the elements of the scene you're photographing.  In the photo below, notice how the right edge of the sidewalk curves toward the center of the image as that edge progresses into the distance --- in reality, that edge should be perfectly straight.  Super wide-angle lenses are well-known for this property of non-linear distortion, and indeed are often used for this very purpose in achieving unnatural perspectives in images, especially in architectural photography and cityscapes.  Under certain circumstances, such distortions can produce artistic effects which may be desirable, depending on the intended perspective.




Here's an example:  I photographed the Daffodil below at the 16mm setting while lying on my belly in my front yard.  The flower was no more than a few inches from the front of the lens, and I had the lens barrel pointed upward:




As you can see, the resulting perspective is quite striking.  I imagine this is what some tiny insect in my front yard might see.  The central flower is quite large, while the other flowers, as well as most of the rest of the background, are rendered somewhat smaller.  Notice also how the trees (both those to the left and the thinner ones to the right) tend to curve and angle in strange ways.  Yet, at first glance, the photo doesn't appear unnatural --- the eye is drawn to the object in the center, while the surrounding elements, all angled somewhat inward, provide the perspective, which tells the observer that s/he is observing the scene from below.

I'd also like to point out the excellent color of this photo.  The blue of the sky is quite deep, the yellow is both saturated and appropriately graduated, and the browns and yellows of the background objects are entirely natural.  No color manipulation has been added to this image in post-processing whatsoever.  For a third-party (i.e., non-Canon / non-Nikon) lens, I find that remarkable.




In terms of focusing and sharpness, I can see no flaws whatsoever (though it should be noted that the lens focuses very slowly, even on a pro body).  Although these photos were taken with the Canon EOS 1D Mark III, which provides an AF "microadjust" feature, I've so far not seen any need to adjust this lens in any way.  Images are quite sharp straight out of the lens, and the color, as I've noted, is vibrant and true.  In the image above, you can see that the sky is quite bright, resulting in some "dodging" of the trees in the background.  As far as I can tell, this is due entirely to my use of a positive exposure compensation in the camera --- i.e., since I'm not using flash for these shots, and since the sun was getting very low in the sky, I felt the need to increase the exposure in order to avoid under-exposing the subject's face.  This resulted in over-exposure of the background, with the resultant "dodging" of the trees.  I don't think the lens can be blamed for that.

So, how does this lens perform for landscape photography?  After all, that's what I am hoping to use it for in the first place!

Well, I'm not sure yet.  I don't live near the Grand Canyon, so how sure can I really be?  In lieu of the Grand Canyon, here's a tree in my front yard:




Note that this photo was taken in portrait format --- i.e., by holding the camera at a right-angle to its normal orientation, which is called landscape format, or landscape orientation.  Wide-angle lenses are indeed somewhat of a misnomer, since they can be used not only to take wide-angle photos, but also tall-angle photos, as illustrated above.  The nice thing about a tall-angle perspective is that you can get both the close foreground in frame (i.e., the grass at your feet) and the deep blue sky high above your subject.  It's a format that I think is too often overlooked.  Indeed, I've often heard it said that publishers and photo-editors continually lament the paucity of vertical-oriented photos, since these tend to fit most readily into published formats (i.e., magazine covers and the like).

Now, if you're as objective an observer as am I, you'll no doubt notice that the trees in the image above seem to slant rather unnaturally in toward the center of the image.  That is indeed a property of the wide-angle view.  As a photographer, however, you need to keep in mind that much of what you notice when inspecting photographs falls entirely under the radar of the casual observer.  Although the slanting trees in the above image may offend you as a photographer (or perhaps even as a botanist?), it is their effect on the experience of the novel observer that must be taken into consideration in evaluating the merits of an image as viable art.

Here's an image taken at the same focal length, but from about 20 feet further back (i.e., using the "foot zoom"):




Although less leaning of the trees is apparent, there is still a fair amount of nonlinear distortion evident.  You can see this most clearly in the proportions of the automobile in the foreground.  If you look at the driveway, it appears a bit long (I know for a fact that it's shorter than it seems).  Also, if you look at the street in the background, it stretches away quite  nicely.  From firsthand experience, I can tell you that the pickup truck around the corner isn't as far away as the photo would suggest, though I find this image quite pleasing in terms of the way it has stretched out the topological contours. 

If you're a discerning viewer you've also noticed the vignetting at the top of the image ---  i.e., the slight, dark banding along the top edge of the image.  This leads us to a very important point regarding this lens.  Tokina's product literature is quite explicit in stating that this is an APS-C lens.  That means that it's designed specially for crop cameras in the 1.5x to 1.6x range.  In the case of Canon DSLR cameras, this means that the lens is well suited for use on a 10D / 20D / 30D / 40D camera body.  For full-frame bodies such as the Canon EOS 5D or the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, it's not recommended.




So, what about the 1.3x crop bodies like the Canon EOS 1D Mark II or III?

Well, there's good news and there's bad news.

The good news is that all of the images featured in this article were shot with a 1.3x crop body.  That should at least convince you that the lens has some utility even when used on a non-APS-C sensor body. 




The bad news is that all of these photos were shot at focal lengths of about 15-16mm.  Focal lengths higher than this (i.e., 17-24mm) worked perfectly fine, though I didn't include any examples here because I was fixated on the effects of ultra-wide-angle photography.  The real bad news is that focal lengths of 12-14mm result in a thick black band of vignetting around the periphery of the image when used on a 1.3x crop camera, with some slight vignetting apparent to the experienced observer even at 15mm, unless corrected with software.





As an example, notice in the image above how the top-right corner of the photo exhibits a dark masking.  There is also a barely-discernible band across the top edge of the image.  This photo was shot at 15mm.  Note also that this is a zoom lens, so that focal lengths cannot be precisely determined to the millimeter, since the zoom setting is a gradually-varying quantity.  On a 1.3x crop body, avoiding vignetting with this lens can be achieved by keeping the zoom setting strictly above 15mm.  I've yet to shoot a photo above about 16mm or 17mm, since I like this range of focal lengths so much.

So, what am I losing by not being able to use this lens in the 12-14mm range? 

Well, first of all, in full-frame (FF) equivalent terms, this really means that I can't use this lens to achieve absolute focal lengths below 19.5mm (on my 1.3x crop-factor body).  What I was pleased to discover, upon performing a fairly extensive internet search for landscape photography tutorials, is that most landscape photography is performed in the 20-28mm range, with a special emphasis on focal lengths hovering around 24mm (in FF terms).  Indeed, as of just a few years ago, lenses shorter than 20mm were quite rare, and were certainly not the mainstay of hordes of landscape photographers.  Thus, for those using the Canon 1D Mark III, the range of usable focal lengths available with the Tokina 12-24mm lens is entirely adequate.





An important point illustrated by the image above is that when shooting with a wide-angle lens, angular distortions tend to be most acutely manifested when shooting at an angle to the structures being photographed.  In this example, you can see that I was tilting the lens not only at an angle to the horizon (i.e., explaining why the car isn't perfectly vertical), but was also angling upward a bit, toward the sky.  From my limited understanding of the way that these lenses operate, I've gathered that the greatest distortions in perspective are obtained by angling the lens with respect to the long axis of whatever is being photographed.  In this case it was a garage, though you can see that the trees in the background were even more severely affected.

Keep in mind, though, that at the end of the day what matters most is the impression made on your viewers when you attempt to utilize the distortion effects of wide-angle lenses.  A wide-angle lens can provide not only a wide-angle view, but also a view which emphasizes distances, and possibly even radically distorts them.  In the image below I've used the latter effect to stretch out the extent of a common garden hose.  Though the distances involved were rather less than that suggested by the image, the effect of the hose extruding prominently from the bottom-right corner of the image to the seemingly distant birdbath at the extreme left provides both a distance scale and a theme to the image.  In the case of the Tokina 12-24mm EF-mount lens, providing such a perspective while also retaining sharpness and color is easily achieved without any special post-processing.




Although I'm not a expert on wide-angle lenses, I've done enough forum-lurking to know that many wide-angle lenses (even expensive ones such as those produced by Canon) induce distortions in the edges of images, either chromatically (i.e., involving unnatural color separation) or otherwise (the most typical being the unnatural "stretching" effect that can be achieved either by using an extremely cheap wide-angle lens or by utilizing long extension tubes or a title-and-shift lens).  As a case in point, if you look at the image above, you'll note that while the edges are slightly out of focus, they exhibit no chromatic distortion, and admit very little indication of any stretching.

What has astounded me, after viewing many examples from other lenses, is the near total lack of any edge distortion from the Tokina 12-24mm lens.  Yes, the landscape and its horizontal/vertical reference lines tend to be distorted in the predictable ways for wide-angle lenses.  And of course the edges of the image when shot at f/4 (as many of these images were) will be out of focus due to the limited depth of field.  But in terms of things like chromatic aberration and "stretching" at the extreme edges of the image, I find very little evidence of either.




In summary, I am bound to say that the Tokina 12-24mm lens provides outstanding wide-angle performance even when mounted on a 1.3x (i.e., non-APS-C format) camera body.  Note that Tokina explicitly states that this lens should be used only on APS-C cameras.  The fact that the lens continues to perform well on 1.3x crop-factor (APS-H) cameras despite this warning only serves to underscore the quality and utility of this lens.  Note that while on a 1.3x crop-factor lens only the 15-24mm range are useful without vignetting, at the low end of the range this is essentially the same as on a 1.6x (i.e., APS-C) body, so that by using the lens on a 1D body you will generally lose little if anything at the wide end.  Together with the affordable nature of this lens, I think that makes this lens an ideal option for those with 1D bodies.

One thing I've failed to note up to this point is the amazing build quality of this lens.  Others have described the build quality as "tank-like".  I don't disagree.  It is both heavy and solid.  On the downside, the focusing is slow, even on a pro body like the 1D Mark III.  Also, the lens hood seems a bit inconvenient, though for me that's because I like to keep all my lenses packed tightly into a portable lens case.  The lens does not come with a lens case of its own. 

Nevertheless, I'm very, very satisfied with this lens, and can wholeheartedly recommend it for other 1D owners.






return to
billmajoros.com