Tokina 12-24 f/4 soft focus?

[Destin]

Hey all, I picked up a used Tokina 12-24 f/4 on ebay a few weeks ago, and I've now used it several times on my D500 at events. My initial testing at home showed that it was reasonably sharp, however my experience in the field has been much different. On my D500 in AF-C, single point focus, I've been getting very soft focus, and possibly severe back focusing.

At close distances this hasn't been a problem.. focus within 10 feet is tack sharp. This photo is a very good example of the problem I've been having.. The text on the wall is sharper than the girls' faces, but to me it looks like more than simple back focusing. There is just an oddly soft quality to the entire photo.

I'm going to try AF fine tuning for a further distance and seeing if it helps, but this requires going outside and the Buffalo weather hasn't been cooperating lately.

What do you guys think could be causing this?

 

[JonA_CT]

When you're using it within 10 feet, are you using it at the same focal length?

I'm sure someone will have a better answer, but to me, the entire picture just looks soft. I wouldn't say the words in the background are any sharper. You should have lots of DOF (10ish or more feet depending on your distance from the subjects) and I can't imagine your AF is missing the first two rows of cheerleaders.

I'm sure you use the lens at the lower extreme too, but I'm guessing your normal fast zoom covers the 24mm you used here -- that's a quick fix, at least.

 

[Destin]

When you're using it within 10 feet, are you using it at the same focal length?

I'm sure someone will have a better answer, but to me, the entire picture just looks soft. I wouldn't say the words in the background are any sharper. You should have lots of DOF (10ish or more feet depending on your distance from the subjects) and I can't imagine your AF is missing the first two rows of cheerleaders.

I'm sure you use the lens at the lower extreme too, but I'm guessing your normal fast zoom covers the 24mm you used here -- that's a quick fix, at least.

Seems to happen at all focal lengths.. I had the 12-24 on camera because throughout their cheers they came much closer to the camera and I needed the width.

I was shooting at f/4 because of the poor lighting, and I understand that lenses are softer wide open. But this is an unacceptable level of softness to me.. and based on the reviews others have written of the lens I'm guessing something is wrong with it.

 

[JonA_CT]

When you're using it within 10 feet, are you using it at the same focal length?

I'm sure someone will have a better answer, but to me, the entire picture just looks soft. I wouldn't say the words in the background are any sharper. You should have lots of DOF (10ish or more feet depending on your distance from the subjects) and I can't imagine your AF is missing the first two rows of cheerleaders.

I'm sure you use the lens at the lower extreme too, but I'm guessing your normal fast zoom covers the 24mm you used here -- that's a quick fix, at least.

Seems to happen at all focal lengths.. I had the 12-24 on camera because throughout their cheers they came much closer to the camera and I needed the width.

I was shooting at f/4 because of the poor lighting, and I understand that lenses are softer wide open. But this is an unacceptable level of softness to me.. and based on the reviews others have written of the lens I'm guessing something is wrong with it.

Sounds like it. Hopefully, you can return it without too much trouble.

FWIW -- Tokina AT-X 12-24 AF PRO DX Nikon | DxOMark

 

[Destin]

Well... I only paid $175 for it on eBay.. can't return it there.

Would it be worth sending to tokina for repair? What could even be causing this?

 

[Destin]

Bump. Anyone else have any input on this?

 

[Derrel]

Focus is good. Edges on the typography are crisp, the letter forms are sharp, and the stuff is in-focus in most of the image. But the lens has veiling glare wide open. Like many lenses shot at wide-open aperture, there is that optical defect called veiling glare. This is VERY common on lenses like older 50mm's, older 85's, etc. I would wager that stopped down one full stop to f/5.6 this gets better, and is gone by f/7.1.

Once could say that this lens was never really intended to be shot at f/4. The lens designers probably sacrificed f/4's performance for lower price, and in most instances, f/5.6 or f/8 would be the expected 'workinjg" aperture in the minds of many lens designers.

I tested out a well-known f/2 lens last week; it was FANTASTIC at f8,5.6,4,and 2.8, but wide-open at f/2 it has veiling glare as well: same basic issue as here: sharp underneath, but that "veil" of haziness over the entire "top" of the image.

 

[greybeard]

I have that lens and I even use on my FF body but, always at f/5.6 or higher. It is really at its best at the wide end and is only so-so at 24mm.

 

[mav52]

I had the same problem on my D300s, and agree with a few here F5.6 or higher to appears to produce better results than F/4. I always found this lens demonstrated some distortion at 12mm, well on my camera that is.

 

[Destin]

Thanks for the help guys! I wasn't satisfied.. sold it for more than I paid for it, and ordered a tokina 11-16 2.8... it has much better reviews and was much more popular. We'll see how it does.