Tokina 11-16 vs Canon 10-22 Perspective Distortion & CA Tests

J Davis

J Davis

Veteran
edited: I've consolidated the results of my test. My blog post here LINK has all focal lengths I shot.

When shooting ultra wide with the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 I noticed the perspective distortion. If I had used a Canon 10-22mm f3.5-f4.5 efs instead … would the effect to be increased or decreased? Well there was only one way to find out. I bought the canon and ran some tests …

canon-13mm.jpg


tokina-13mm.jpg


Here is a crop so you can compare them side by side.

canon-vs-tokina-13mm-comparison.jpg
 
Last edited:
10mm

10mm

edited: I've consolidated the results of my test. My blog post here LINK has all focal lengths I shot. See post one of this thread.
 
Last edited:
11mm

11mm

edited: I've consolidated the results of my test. My blog post here LINK has all focal lengths I shot. See post one of this thread.
 
Last edited:
12mm

12mm

edited: I've consolidated the results of my test. My blog post here LINK has all focal lengths I shot. See post one of this thread.
 
Last edited:
edited: I've consolidated the results of my test. My blog post here LINK has all focal lengths I shot. See post one of this thread.
 
Last edited:
edited: I've consolidated the results of my test. My blog post here LINK has all focal lengths I shot. See post one of this thread.
 
Last edited:
edited: I've consolidated the results of my test. My blog post here LINK has all focal lengths I shot. See post one of this thread.
 
Last edited:
edited: I've consolidated the results of my test. My blog post here LINK has all focal lengths I shot. See post one of this thread.
 
Last edited:
edited: I've consolidated the results of my test. My blog post here LINK has all focal lengths I shot. See post one of this thread.
 
Last edited:
edited: I've consolidated the results of my test. My blog post here LINK has all focal lengths I shot. See post one of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Nice set, thanks. It's amazing how straight the lines are and at the same time how distorted the ball is.
I guess it's just the nature of this ultra wide lens design. The Tokina looks like the winner by a slight margin
in the ball distortion and of course wins on speed. I guess the CA test will tell a whole new story.
 
Thanks Rockmore. I know its a very unscientific test but I'm learning a lot and I agree, the difference between lines and circles is pretty wild.
It's also good to have a person there as you can sometimes get away with a shot because a persons head is not perfect like the ball.
I actually did a series where I had her stand further back but I never posted the results as the ball and the girl looked fine on both lenses at all focal lengths.

I'm currently going thru my shots for CA, so far it is not looking good for the Tokina
 
J Davis said:
the difference between lines and circles is pretty wild.
Click to expand...

With different ultra wide lens configurations the result is completely different. With my Canon 18-55mm and the x.7 Century adapter (which makes it 12.6mm) a soccer ball would be perfectly symmetrical even close up in the corners, but straight lines are bent like hell on the sides. I guess that setup will come in handy if I need an ultra wide shot with heads and no straight lines to give it away. There is a lot to learn about the behavior of these wide lenses.
 
ROCKMORE said:
There is a lot to learn about the behavior of these wide lenses.
Click to expand...

Yes. When I first started noticing the perspective distortion in my tokina 11-16 establishing shots I really needed to know if the different lens design in the canon 10-22 would yield a different distortion.
The tests I did with Liz have answered that question. For my purposes any difference in perspective distortion is negligible. But the best thing I learned fromt that series of tests is ...

• the canon 10-22 can hold f4 as if it were fixed aperture from 10mm thru to 16mm (beyond 16mm I'll use my 17-55/2.8 at f4)
• there is a huge number of field of view variations within just one focal length. (eg the 12mm tokina shots) It would be great to be able to accurately measure at less than a millimeter, 11.2mm, 11.4mm, 11.6mm etc

I'm still not convinced by by my CA tests. I need to check focusing on both wides. Or maybe redo the CA test using manual focus.
 
I forgot to post this but it is something I was checking out the other day and way better than the CA test I did
you can see the CA between the 10-22 and the 11-16 at
the-digital-picture.com
LINK
 
What's your conclusion, J? What do you think of the differences between the lenses. They're around the same price so I'm curious to here your opinion.
 
Well I just sold my 10-22mm. This decision was made on the basis that
• I already own the 17-55/2.8 canon so 17mm and upwards is covered
• the construction of the each meant any difference in perspective distortion between the two was un-noticeable from 11 thru 16
• although the CA on the canon was sometimes better (post 16 chart test) it was outweighed by vignetting (shadow corners)
 
Last edited:
J Davis said:
Well I just sold my 10-22mm. This decision was made on the basis that
• I already own the 17-5/2.8 canon so 17mm and upwards is covered
• the construction of the each meant any difference in perspective distortion between the two was un-noticeable from 11 thru 16
• although the CA on the canon was sometimes better (post 16 chart test) it was outweighed by vignetting (shadow corners)
Click to expand...

And of course the constant 2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top