Unusual amount of vignetting, or not?

[Abstract]

I recently bought a Tokina 12-24 mm f/4 lens with Nikon mount, and I've been quite happy with it's performance so far. I didn't notice any vignetting from any of the photos I've taken so far, but I think my lens hood seems to darken a part of the frame when I use it. I'm sure it's physically blocking out light from a tiny bit of the frame, making it pointless unless I love cropping.

Anyway, that's not the problem. I just got a Hoya HMC Multicoated UV filter because it's a cheap way to possibly protect my new lens. I put it on and took a few shots in my room, and that's when I noticed vignetting. I didn't notice it before, but I think I shot at f/8 most of the time.

Can someone tell me whether the following photos show an unusual amount of vignetting? ALL the photos were taken with the UV filter on except the very last one to show you that the filter isn't causing any issues.

 

[Abstract]

Using the 12mm at f/4 with no filter attached. I read a few reviews for this lens at SLRgear before purchasing, and nobody ever mentioned anything about vignetting, only that there was CA.

 

[iGary]

Using the 12mm at f/4 with no filter attached. I read a few reviews for this lens at SLRgear before purchasing, and nobody ever mentioned anything about vignetting, only that there was CA.

That's not normal. My Sigma 12-24 never did that. CA I would expect, but that - no.

I think Chip has one of these, maybe PM him?

 

[Abstract]

Thanks, that's what I thought. More a rhetorical question than anything.

The review said that there was 0.5 eV maximum falloff at the edges when at 12 mm and f/4, but that doesn't look like 0.5 eV.


EDIT TO ADD: Just wanted to say that this vignetting seems much worse when the focal distance is short. All the photos taken so far was at a distance of around 30-40 cm. I tried taking photos of the same wall from at least 1 metre away, and the vignetting wasn't as bad. Is there a technical explanation for this, because I didn't know that vignetting depended on distance.

 

[Clix Pix]

I agree with Gary, this does not look right and is not normal. I think it might be a good idea to return to the dealer from where you bought it and ask to try another one on your camera to see if the same thing occurs. It may just be a faulty copy of that lens....

 

[ChrisA]

All wide angle lens do this to some extent. They all have a brighter center than edges. Some are corrected so you don't notice. It has to do with the geometry of maping the image to a flat sensor or flat flim plane. On a good lens this shouldn't be noticable.

When you add a filter or a lens hood some light might be blocked. They make filters specially for wide angle. These have very thin metal rings and no threads on the front. Some of them are even made of thin glass. You should hunt down one of these special filters if you like using filters. I wouldn't expect a "normal" filter to work. A step up ring might ork too. Get a very large filter and a steep up ring. You would need this for a polerizing filter as they don't make thin pol. filters

As for the lens hood, I'm surprized they shipped a hood that would vignet the image. It must be a compromize and they expect you to remove it at the wideist zoom setting. Hoods aren't effective at extream wide setting anyways. Best to use a hand held sheet of papera or whaterever

You can remove the dark edges in Photoshop (or in some other editor) as long as the edges are not completly black. The trick is to make a mask, one that is dark in the center and lighter on the edges. Make this by shooting the sky or a white wall at various zoom settings and f-stops then "invert" them to make a black and white negative image. Use this as a layer in PS and multiply the image to be corrected by the mask. If the mask was made at the same settings as the image the correction should be nearly perfect. You only have to make and "tune" the masks once and you can re-use the work as long as you own the lens. But a _think_ PS has a built in filter that will correct this. It would not be as good as a custom mask but maybe good enough

Also, If you've ever read "The Print" by Ansel Adams he claims that almost every image that is to be mounted on a light mat can be improved by very slightly darkening the edges of the print. He used black cardborad in the enlarger beam but in your case you get to have the effect (4x stronger then need be) for "free".

Lastly, Tokina is one of the lower prices lens makers. You have to figure there is a reason they are selling at the price they do. To fully correct this problem would require larger diameter lens elements and higher cost.

 

[Clix Pix]

Lastly, Tokina is one of the lower prices lens makers. You have to figure there is a reason they are selling at the price they do. To fully correct this problem would require larger diameter lens elements and higher cost.

Exactly.....which is why when I wanted a wide-angle lens, I went for Nikon's version of the 12-24mm, even though it is significantly pricier than those made by third-party lens manufacturers.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Never noticed an issue with my Tokona 12-24 on either the Canon or Nikon mount.

I would suggest that the OP post actual images that demonstrate the problem. My "iPod church" image shows first hand the issues faced in Digital formats.

They may be to focused on details than actual results.

 

[Abstract]

When you add a filter or a lens hood some light might be blocked. They make filters specially for wide angle. These have very thin metal rings and no threads on the front. Some of them are even made of thin glass. You should hunt down one of these special filters if you like using filters. I wouldn't expect a "normal" filter to work. A step up ring might ork too. Get a very large filter and a steep up ring. You would need this for a polerizing filter as they don't make thin pol. filters

As for the lens hood, I'm surprized they shipped a hood that would vignet the image. It must be a compromize and they expect you to remove it at the wideist zoom setting. Hoods aren't effective at extream wide setting anyways. Best to use a hand held sheet of papera or whaterever

Well I told the lady at the store that I was buying the UV filter for a 12-24mm lens, although I didn't tell her it was a Tokina. Its a Hoya HMC Multicoated UV(0) filter with a sticker that says "77.0s" on it. I measured the ring and it's 5 mm "long."

And trust me, I'm surprised about the lens hood as well. It's not quite darkening at the edges, but you can see where the lens hood intrudes on the photo. If it's on correctly, it's not a big deal.

I was going to buy a circular polariser ring, but I read on Ken Rockwell's site that you shouldn't because of uneven polarization in some instances, like if you're shooting the sky, since the angle of incidence of the light reaching your lens varies a lot with wide angle lenses and this effects the amount of polarization across the sky (makes sense to me). That's what I would have gotten, but I guess this UV one is ok.

Anyway, I'll use it for another week in normal circumstances. Then I'll see what my next course of action is.

 

[ksz]

I was surprised to see this so I tested my Tokina 12-24mm in the same way and obtained similar results. Because shutter speed is not a factor here, I set the camera to Aperture Priority and shot a series of images at various focal lengths and apertures. I'll post a sampling here. (Hover the mouse on each image for f/stop and focal length.)

 

[ksz]

Here's the same spread at 15mm. Although I'm not really disappointed in this (just have to be cautious about using the lens at its widest focal length), it would be interesting to compare this with Nikon's 12-24.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

That's not normal. My Sigma 12-24 never did that. CA I would expect, but that - no.

I think Chip has one of these, maybe PM him?

iGary, Abstract may have me filtered due to the Assignment threads and "rules" discussion. Please note that despite my request for real world image, none were posted. Shame since I am trying to separate personal disputes from trying to make DPF work. Even by his own admission, he saw no issues in real world images.

I didn't notice any vignetting from any of the photos I've taken so far

Instead he posted "test" samples to stake claim to an issue. And posted comments from a salesperson to support these claims. I(n our shop we have sold many different UV and polarizer filters for the Tokina 12-24 lens, in many different mounts. So far no complaints.

Here are two uncorrected images shot at f/5.6, note that there does not appear that any vignetting is evident. In fact with the second image was done with a standard polarizer. Both were with the supplied hood.

Perhaps another example of one that is wrapped up in rules and "pixel peeping", rather than real world results.

I will say that there are issues with the Panasonic LX-1/Leica D-Lux 2, as witnessed by the third image. Which was shot at f3.2 with the max being f2.8.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Here's the same spread at 15mm. Although I'm not really disappointed in this (just have to be cautious about using the lens at its widest focal length), it would be interesting to compare this with Nikon's 12-24.

KSZ, thanks for the test. But the real proof is in actual pictures.

I have never been disappointed in the images that my Tokina 12-24 has given. I would love t see these "pixel peeping" tests done on the Nikon 12-24 or even the Canon 10-22.

 

[Abstract]

iGary, Abstract may have me filtered due to the Assignment threads and "rules" discussion. Please note that despite my request for real world image, none were posted. Shame since I am trying to separate personal disputes from trying to make DPF work. Even by his own admission, he saw no issues in real world images.

Sometimes I have no idea what you're going on about. I may have "filtered you"....right. I've dropped it all long ago and don't even make comments, but here you are. I know you're a "Demi-God" and all, so that gives me less rights around here, but still, stop whinging..... Note that I didn't answer Clix Pix's replies either, but yeah, I read all of them and appreciate all responses.

I havent taken real world images at f/4 except a few, and I deleted most of them when I first downloaded them to my external HD. I only discovered the vignetting yesterday before I made the post.

And like I said, I will take photos in "real world" situations. I'm going to wait until I go to the national park with friends on Sunday for a 13km hike, but I'll be sure to take a few shots at 12mm f/4.

@ksz: The vignetting on my photo at 12mm f/4 when my wall was only 30-40 cm away is much worse than the vignetting in your photo, but at greater distances, maybe it'll perform more like yours. Again, I'll find out when I'm out in the park. I'll shoot the sky and see. Vignetting shows up great when shooting blue skies.

 

[ChrisA]

Well I told the lady at the store that I was buying the UV filter for a 12-24mm lens, although I didn't tell her it was a Tokina. Its a Hoya HMC Multicoated UV(0) filter with a sticker that says "77.0s" on it. I measured the ring and it's 5 mm "long."

You got the "regular" filter. Hoya's thin rings are 3mm.
Maybe she did not have a Hoya "pro 1" filter and still wanted the sale.

And trust me, I'm surprised about the lens hood as well. It's not quite darkening at the edges, but you can see where the lens hood intrudes on the photo. If it's on correctly, it's not a big deal.

I was going to buy a circular polariser ring, but I read on Ken Rockwell's site that you shouldn't because of uneven polarization in some instances, like if you're shooting the sky, since the angle of incidence of the light reaching your lens varies a lot with wide angle lenses and this effects the amount of polarization across the sky (makes sense to me). That's what I would have gotten, but I guess this UV one is ok.

If you did buy the pol. filter it would not be left on the lens. they are only used for special purposes. So you don't ever choose between a UV and a Pol. the question is only if you will ever use the pol. filer enough to justify it's approx $80 price. I'd say buy it if you do landscapes and not if you do mostly peole pictures and macro.

Yes if that is the reason for the polariser. The sky will appear to vary in color. But Pol filters are also used so you can shoot through glass or otherwise kill reflectons like the "spake" on water. But who shoots wide angle through glass? So you are right. but then the Pol. filter would be usful at the longer end of the zoom's range and you don't have the use the pol. filter to full effect either. You can back it off so it's not noticable.

 

[ksz]

KSZ, thanks for the test. But the real proof is in actual pictures.

I have never been disappointed in the images that my Tokina 12-24 has given. I would love t see these "pixel peeping" tests done on the Nikon 12-24 or even the Canon 10-22.

Here's one at 12mm f/6.3 (left) and 17mm f/7.1 (right). Both seem okay to me. No discernible vignetting.

Edit: Maybe a little vignetting on the upper and lower right corners of the first photo?

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Sometimes I have no idea what you're going on about. I may have "filtered you"....right. I've dropped it all long ago and don't even make comments, but here you are. I know you're a "Demi-God" and all, so that gives me less rights around here, but still, stop whinging..... Note that I didn't answer Clix Pix's replies either, but yeah, I read all of them and appreciate all responses.

Maybe it is your blind devotion to "rules" or even "tests". No, my "demi-god" status does not give me much here. Other than questioning those that try to impose their will on others. The problem I have is in that s few are trying to dictate to the many. In particular those that don't contribute financially to MR, but try to impose their will on others. I would respect Blue's opinion more. But that does not mean that I can't help out when questions arise.

Please note that I tried to keep the issues between us private in my response. I tried to provide context as to why your concerns were not addressed directly.

But no, you decided on what I look at as very personal attacks. Shame on you. It just shows that you have no objective reason to be involved in the "assignment" threads. You have clearly indicated that Clix Pix and I do not rank in your opinion. And for that reason you have no place in deciding what is right or wrong in the "assignment" threads, You have lost all objectivity.

Since you did not answer my request for real world examples, I took that I was "filtered". I will admit publicly that there is "bad blood" between us. I even offered my apologies in a couple of threads, looking for a better DPF. My concern about "demi-god" status, is one of the power you yield in the assignment threads. Your way, or the highway IMO.; as well as with Applespider. (sorry Applespider, but Abstracts comments brought out all the dirty laundry).

I would like to think that I was sincere in answering iGary's response. Instead of your personal attacks, I tried to focus on real world examples, while possibly explaining lack of response to my original post in this thread.

You however decided to elevate this to another level. If you were to look closely at my post to iGary I only questioned your methods in deciding there was a "problem".

Your hostility towards me (and others) really needs to be taken off line. At least my comments are meant to make the DPF more "friendly".

In this thread I questioned your "test" results with my real world results. And offered an example of true example with a different camera and lens.

Remember it was you that that took this to another level.

I havent taken real world images at f/4 except a few, and I deleted most of them when I first downloaded them to my external HD. I only discovered the vignetting yesterday before I made the post.

And like I said, I will take photos in "real world" situations. I'm going to wait until I go to the national park with friends on Sunday for a 13km hike, but I'll be sure to take a few shots at 12mm f/4.

@ksz: The vignetting on my photo at 12mm f/4 when my wall was only 30-40 cm away is much worse than the vignetting in your photo, but at greater distances, maybe it'll perform more like yours. Again, I'll find out when I'm out in the park. I'll shoot the sky and see. Vignetting shows up great when shooting blue skies.

The vignetting issue as I have shown is not much of an issue. Even at f/5.6! Even the nitpickers would say that a one stop difference would not have a major impact in vignetting

To the others viewing this thread, I do apologize. But I can't let a "bully" to malign me or others. I thought I took the high road in this thread initially. I posted real world examples. And even an example that showed some issues.

Sorry that you all had to witness a clash between Abstract and myself.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Here's one at 12mm f/6.3 (left) and 17mm f/7.1 (right). Both seem okay to me. No discernible vignetting.

Edit: Maybe a little vignetting on the upper and lower right corners of the first photo?

Really hard to say. it may have more to due the use of the flash. In both of my Tokina examples they were both with out a flash.

 

[Abstract]

Please note that I tried to keep the issues between us private in my response. I tried to provide context as to why your concerns were not addressed directly.

But no, you decided on what I look at as very personal attacks. Shame on you.

Personal attacks? When? I didn't bring it up, so I find it funny that you think you "tried to keep the issues between us private in my response" when I never ever --- not once --- bring it up in any thread randomly just to vent. I was past it, and I still am. Since you brought it up, you obviously aren't. So if anything, "shame on you" for not being adult. I am. I will and have never brought it up in another thread. I leave everything in the assignment thread, and in other threads that have nothing to do with the assignment, I leave the baggage behind and never let it spill into other non-related threads.

But thanks for bringing it all back up in your post. I think you're the one who can't be objective if you let things bother you so much. Let it slide, man. Please.

It just shows that you have no objective reason to be involved in the "assignment" threads. You have clearly indicated that Clix Pix and I do not rank in your opinion.

Again, I'm objective. Clix Pix and you do rank in my opinion. I didn't reply to you and Clix Pix's relies directly because I never reply to every single response in every thread. I'm sure you don't/can't either. It wasn't personal. That's just impossible with the size that threads get to, and with the number of replies that people get. But hey, believe what you want. I only answered ksz's post directly because he did a similar comparison to what I did, so to me it was interesting, since I spent so much time trying to find a wall where the lighting was even and wouldn't contribute to an uneven camera/lens response. Again, not personal, but take it as you will.

 

[Abstract]

If you did buy the pol. filter it would not be left on the lens. they are only used for special purposes. So you don't ever choose between a UV and a Pol. the question is only if you will ever use the pol. filer enough to justify it's approx $80 price. I'd say buy it if you do landscapes and not if you do mostly peole pictures and macro.

Yes if that is the reason for the polariser. The sky will appear to vary in color. But Pol filters are also used so you can shoot through glass or otherwise kill reflectons like the "spake" on water. But who shoots wide angle through glass? So you are right. but then the Pol. filter would be usful at the longer end of the zoom's range and you don't have the use the pol. filter to full effect either. You can back it off so it's not noticable.

So was Ken Rockwell right when he said to not use a polarizer on a wideangle lens? The physics seemed right to me, but the polarizer is what I really wanted. And yes, I do prefer landscape above all else, but I might move on and see what I can do elsewhere.

 

[ksz]

So was Ken Rockwell right when he said to not use a polarizer on a wideangle lens?

Two or three weeks ago I purchased a B+W slim polarizer for my 12-24. It's supposedly kosher for wideangle, but it has been unusually wet in this part of California (record rain in March and a only about 5 days of sunny skies in April so far) so I haven't had an opportunity to use it.

 

[jared_kipe]

First off let me say this. There is no "magic" that happens in the so called "real world" tests. Unless you're using the water in somewhere the physics differ from the "real world" then there will be no difference if the conditions are the same. So not being there and not noticing because the conditions are different are two different things. So if it happens when an even light is going strait into the lens then it happens.

I think your vignetting is bad, but not so much so that its unusable at f4. That said, if yours is a cropped dSLR then this would look bad on a full frame. How even is your light source? its not a flash is it?