Tokina 11-16: Ultrawide for Low Light Portraits

In this post, we review the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, a crop-sensor lens with a fast constant aperture and a reputation for sharpness.  Is it worth the extra cost?  Hit the jump for our review and samples.

EDIT: Added comments re chromatic aberration, ghosting and flare.

Just a couple of months ago, I got an ultrawide lens, the Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 (reviewed here).  I unexpectedly found it very useful for people photos, not just for shots of locations.  The one thing about the Sigma 10-20 that I was not completely satisfied with was the aperture.  It was a slow lens.  For locations and inanimate subjects, it was perfectly fine.  When there was plenty of light or when I was using flash, it was also excellent.  However, for available light photos of people in indoor or dim light, the aperture was a little too slow.  Subjects would appear blurred, not so much from the camera movement, but the movement of the subjects themselves.

Sigma 10-20: noticeable blur from subjects' movement due to the narrow aperture.  f/4.5, 1/10, 1600 ISO.

After shooting with the Sigma for a while, I began to consider upgrading to the Tokina 11-16.  First, the Tokina has a constant 2.8 aperture.  I would be able to shoot at double the shutter speed compared with the Sigma.  Alternatively, it would be like having one extra stop of ISO.  Second, reviews of the Tokina say that it is a very sharp lens.  The Sigma was quite sharp for me, but hey, an even sharper lens would be great.  Finally, the Tokina has a trick that the Sigma doesn't have: even though the Tokina is a crop sensor lens (like the Sigma) the Tokina can actually be used on a full frame camera (with limits).  So I sold the Sigma that I loved so much and got the Tokina 11-16.

DESCRIPTION
The Tokina 11-16 is Tokina's second ultrawide lens for crop sensor cameras, and it looks virtually identical to its older sibling, the Tokina 12-24 f/4 (which is also a well regarded ultrawide). 

The Tokina 11-16 is part of Tokina's AT-X PRO series, which is Tokina's line of professional grade crop-sensor lenses.  It's made of plastic and it feels rather light but solidly-built.  The Tokina features a Focus Clutch Mechanism which allows you to easily switch from autofocus to manual and back merely by pulling or pushing the focusing ring.  When pulled back, the focus ring disengages the focus mechanism from the camera's focusing motor, allowing the user to set the focus manually.  Pushing it in re-engages the focus mechanism.

PERFORMANCE ON APS-C

Tokina 11-16 on Fuji S5. f/8, 1/500, ISO 200

I first tried the Tokina outdoors.  Not surprisingly the Tokina had stellar performance under these conditions.

Even when used wide open, the Tokina 11-16 has corner-to-corner sharpness.  These shots are all at f/2.8:

Note: vignetting was added in post-processing

However, the primary reason for my upgrade was to be able to use it for people photos in dim light, especially when I can't use a high ISO.  Well, I got to use it under exactly those kinds of conditions.  Specifically, I had used it with a Nikon D70, not exactly a low-light performer (it maxes out at 1600 ISO).  Here's a shot:

Tokina 11-16 on Nikon D70.  f/2.8, 1/80, ISO 1600.  Ambient light only.

Part of what made this shot possible is that the Tokina is sharp even at f/2.8.  However, perhaps an even more important factor here was that at f/2.8 I was able to get a shutter speed of 1/80 (at 1600 ISO), which helped me get a sharp shot even with the dim light.  Exactly what I wanted.

But wait - there's more!

PERFORMANCE ON FULL FRAME

As I mentioned before, the Tokina 11-16 can be used on a full-frame camera.  The widest focal length available on full frame depends on your tolerance for vignetting and the intended frame ratio.

At 14mm, there is heavy vignetting in the corners.  However, if your frame ratio is 1:1 (square) or close to it, 14mm may be usable.

14mm on full frame

Similarly, 15mm may be usable with a frame ratio of 4:5 or possibly even 5:7.

15mm on full frame

At 16mm, there is still some vignetting at the corners, but in my opinion, the entire frame is usable. 16mm might not sound super wide, but remember that that's the actual 35mm focal length, i.e., it's equivalent to a 10.67mm APS-C lens.

16mm on full frame

The fact that the Tokina 11-16 can be used on a full frame is very useful because I can take advantage of the full frame high ISO capability AND the fast f/2.8 aperture to get shots in marginal lighting conditions.  Case in point: Disney's Small World.  It's quite dark inside and to make it even more challenging, you're on a little boat that is always moving.  Let's see what shots we can get here.

Yes, it is possible to get sharp portraits under these conditions:

True, I had attempted shots at small world before, using the Sigma 10-20.  But there are a couple of big differences.  First, I was able to use a wider aperture of f/2.8 instead of f/4.  Secondly, I was able to use the entire full frame sensor, instead of just an APS-C crop.  Using a crop means that the noise will be magnified, effectively diminishing the high ISO potential.

With the Sigma 10-20, noise is much more visible because of the APS-C crop, and the slower shutter speed results in more noticeable blur

CHROMATIC ABERRATION, GHOSTING AND FLARE
The Tokina 11-16 is supposedly very vulnerable to ghosting and flare.  Among the shots I've taken, I have yet to see one where there is flare that noticeably reduces the contrast across the frame.  By contrast (excuse the pun), I have several examples of flare with the Sigma 10-20.  As for ghosting, I also haven't seen much of it from the Tokina 11-16.  Again, I recall seeing more examples of ghosting from the Sigma 10-20.  For what it's worth, please check out the new post testing filters for protecting lenses.  You'll see examples of ghosting from this lens as well as another lens, the Nikkor 24-70 2.8G.  Considering that the 24-70 2.8G has a Nano Crystal Coating that is supposed to reduce ghosting and flare, and considering that the Tokina was tested at a much wider angle (16mm equivalent vs. 24mm), I believe the Tokina 11-16 had reasonably controlled ghosting.
The Tokina 11-16 does have a vulnerability to chromatic aberration and purple fringing.  However, Lightroom 4.1 has a couple of tools to reduce chromatic aberration and purple/green fringing.  Check out our post on Lightroom's Defringe tool.  The lens I used there was the Tokina 10-17 Fisheye, but the 11-16 has similar amounts of purple fringing.  You'll see how well Lightroom controls those fringing issues.  Personally, I'm not really bothered by purple fringing and now that LR has those defringing tools, I'm even less concerned about them.  Just my opinion.

CONCLUSION
Here are my thoughts on the Tokina in comparison with the Sigma and similar ultrawides:

• In terms of sharpness, in my opinion I think both the Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 11-16 are sharp.  I would probably not upgrade to the Tokina 11-16 merely for sharpness per se.
• If you use an ultrawide to take a lot of people shots (or shots of moving subjects) in low light, the extra stop makes it more likely that the shutter speed will be high enough to keep the shots of the subjects sharp.
• The Tokina 11-16 can be used on a full frame camera, so if you have one, the Tokina is even more useful in low light.
• The Tokina is not as long as the Sigma 10-20, but I almost always use the Sigma at 10mm and the Tokina at 11mm anyway, so that's not a big deal.
• The one thing I would have wished for on the Tokina 11-16 is a built-in autofocus motor.  I believe an ultrawide is much more usable when you have a camera with a swing out LCD to allow you to take shots from unusual angles.  Unfortunately, the only Nikon cameras with swing out LCDs (D5000, D5100) or remote live view (D3200) don't have autofocus motors, so the Tokina 11-16 can't autofocus on those bodies.  (Canon users have no such issues.)  The new version of this lens is now available (see here) and costs just $40 more than the first version.

MORE SAMPLE PHOTOS
Here are some more samples from the Tokina 11-16 from a recent trip to Las Vegas.

EVEN MORE SAMPLE PHOTOS

Amazon customer gallery

Read More

Canon EF Lenses Chat: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Review

Chandelier at an old place called Rihana

Now that I've taken close to a thousand shots with my Canon 50mm f/1.4, it is a good time to do my review, it is probably going to be quite long, with lots of smaples (see? I do what I want other reviews to do, but unfortunately they don't), so if you want the short version, here it is, it kicks ass. Click through for more details.

P.S. You can click on any picture to see a 1200px version.

INTRODUCTION

The 50mm focal length is not new to me, you might remember my pursuit of a 50mm equivalent lens on my crop sensor DSLR, I ended up with the under-estimated Canon 35mm f/2, it was my do-it-all lens, but since I switched to full frame, I wanted that focal length back, below were my choices (auto-focus filtered):

• Canon EF 50mm f/1.8
• Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
• Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM
• Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX

And here is my reasoning for ending up with the 1.4 Canon, I have previously owned the Canon 50mm f/1.8, and in short, apart from great sharpness at f/2.8 and smaller apertures, it was not that good, slow noisy and inaccurate focusing, lots of nervous bokeh, and not very sharp until f/2.5, so I skipped it. The 50 f/2.5 Macro was ok, but I wanted a faster aperture and a better focusing mechanism. The Canon 50 f/1.2 was out of my price and size range, so that's a pass too.

Choice was down between the two 50 f/1.4 lenses, the Sigma and the Canon, having tried the Sigma myself in Malaysia (albeit on a crop sensor), I was awed by it's excellent bokeh, and Mic confirmed the same in his excellent review with some bokehlicious samples (if you haven't ever watched DigitalRevTV, you have to, search it on youtube), but alas, for some reason, the Canon versions of most 3rd party lenses have lots focusing issues ranging from inconsistency, to hunting in low light, to just plain back and front-focussing, and that's a real shame, because it put me off from both the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, the solution is to go through several copies until you find one that works with your body, and I wasn't going to do that.

So, by exclusion, I had no choice but to get the Canon 50 f/1.4, so how did it go?

This shot was taken almost one hour after sunset in the Fayoum desert, bounce flash to the left

THE CANON 50MM F/1.4

I was worried about getting the Canon over the Sigma for a couple of reasons, although the Canon is designated as USM, it doesn't have true ring USM focusing (which is very quick and completely silent), but rather a micro motor which is famously prone to breaking sometime during its lifetime. The other reason is that reviews claim that it is very soft wide open and not really that sharp until stopped down to f/2.8.

Well, I am here to report that I am very satisfied with the Canon's focusing, it is reasonably quiet, very consistent at all apertures, and features full time manual focussing override, as for focusing system failure, we'll see this over time, some people say because the front element extends slightly during focusing, it is more likely to get bumped, however I am using it with a lens hood all the time. I like the build quality, it is solid with a metal mount, but the focusing ring is not very smooth (because of the focusing mechanism), it feels like grinding when used manually. Size is perfect and discrete, and having f/1.4 is great, but they say it is totally unusable at that aperture, oh, is it? Let's find out.

Full frame is real fun when you want to control DoF, even stopped down

WIDE-OPEN PERFORMANCE

This lens drove me crazy for the first couple of weeks I owned it, focusing was very inconsistent, sometimes back-focusing, sometimes the other way around, so I started playing with MFA on my 5D Mark II and ended up with +2 MFA, and I was happy with wide-open performance, but shortly after that I found more inconsistency, close shots were ok, but farther shots were out of focus, until one day I was shooting my sleeping daughter and found the focus was way off, but consistently off, so I started fiddling with MFA for the zillionth time, and this time ended up with +13 MFA, it was the magical number, suddenly all my furstration with the lens went away, the lens was singing and I went berserk running everywhere inside the house and the garden shooting everything wide-open, with amazing results, totally unexpected, it was a user error all the time, and fortunately, I've learned how to do MFA properly.

Now my lens is quite sharp wide open with a nice bite, and with nice soft out of focus bckgrounds, stopped down to f/2 makes it real sharp and at f/2.8 it is as sharp as I remember my 50mm f/1.8 is, which is very sharp. How I got focused shots at +2 MFA (and other settings I tried and worked ok for some shots) is beyond me. What's more interesting, non of my ring-USM lenses ever needed MFA (and I tried it to make sure lenses were as sharp as they would get), this included the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8 L, 200 f/2.8 L, and 24-105 f/4 L. My other non ring-USM lens I tried on the 5D is the 35mm f/2 and it needed a +5 MFA, glad it was perfect on the 60D.

All the examples you're seeing next are shot wide-open.

PetroSport club at sunset, those chairs in the background were very close

Bowling Center

PetroSport club, I like the balloon caolors

A pink rose

Rihana, old gramaphone, my friends thought of this shot

Rihana, old artifacts everywhere

IMAGE QUALITY

Excellent, good color, good contrast, quite sharp wide-open and down to f/2 (after that it gets real sharp) with a nice bite to the images that makes some of them look three dimensional like the examples below.

PetroSport club

Rihana, another old chandelier

Bokeh is much better than the 50 f/1.8 and my Zuiko 50 f/1.8 (still have it, will post about it again), and it gets dreamy wide-open especially when you're shooting close. I never faced any chromatic aberrations with this lens. My only complaint might be the slightly octagonal-shaped highlights when not shooting wide-open.

Capturing on the Galaxy Note, Bowling Center

Rihana

Rihana

Rihana

Chocolate Fondant, Crave Maadi

WRAPPING IT UP

I like this lens a lot, it is my default lens when I go anywhere because of three very important reasons, size, fast aperture and focal length, something about the 50mm perspective seems attractive, I use it for semi-wide shots, wide/close portraits, close-up details and literaly all kinds of shots. After getting the correct MFA, focusing is always sopt-on (by the way, I am using single point focusig 100% of the time, with AI Servo continuous focusig, and back button focusing).

Sharpness is really good wide-open and easily exceeded my expectations (reviews bashed it really bad), of course it can use more sharpness, but I am satisfied with what I am getting. The size is also perfect, wth my current lens lineup (50 f/1.4, 50 f/1.8 Zuiko, 100 f/2.8 Macro, 200 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4), the 50 is the smallest lens I have and the only one that fits wth the camera inside my Lowepro Zoom Toploader 45 AW.

So do I recommend this lens? Yes, anytime and everytime, the price is very good, the size is perfect and the optical performance is satisfying wide-open, and stellar stopped down, below are a few more samples. What do you think?

Old timer, Kafr Al-Sheikh

Sometimes clouds do very strange shapes

Hey, where are you going? Bowling Center

Watching an interesting shot, Bowling Center

Girls ganged up on this poor guy to extract the ball from his clutches, Rihana

Having absolute fun, Rihana

That's a BMW E39 in the background, love its shape

Countryside, Kafr Al-Sheikh

RELATED POSTS

• Canon Lenses Chat - Part 1: Standard Zoom Lenses
• Canon Lenses Chat - Part 2: Telephoto Zoom Lenses
• Canon Lenses Chat - Part 3: Prime Lenses
• Canon EF 35mm f/2 Review
• Quick Review: Canon 85mm f/1.8
• Macro Talk: Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM 
• Canon EF Lenses Chat: Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Review
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Review

Read More

Sigma 50 1.4 review

I had lunch the other day with the Most Interesting Man in the World, and that's what he told me.  Hit the jump for our review.

Sigma 50 1.4 on a D3

I got a full frame camera mostly because I wanted more control over the depth of field.  Call me shallow.  I first used the D3 with the Tamron 28-105 2.8.  The shallow dof that I wanted was definitely there, even at 28mm.  However, I wanted an even shallower DOF at conversational distances (i.e. not with a telephoto), so I started thinking of getting a fast 50 and/or an 85.

Eventually I decided against an 85 for reasons I'll discuss next time.  Meanwhile you know how cheap I can be, so naturally my first instinct was to look at the Nikon 50 1.8D, the cheapest fast 50 for Nikon.  The problem with the 50 1.8D is that the bokeh is not very good.  I'm not a bokeh connoisseur, but I figured if I was getting a lens because of the shallow depth of field, I may as well get one with nice bokeh.  So I considered the 50 1.8G and the 50 1.4G, both of which have better bokeh than the 50 1.4D and 50 1.8D.

As I did more research though, I saw side-by-side comparisons with the Sigma 50 1.4.  I had never considered the Sigma previously because it actually costs more than even the Nikon 50 1.4G.  However, I could not deny that in comparisons, it had the smoothest bokeh.

I read up on reviews of the Sigma.  Photozone wrote that it is sharp at the center but soft at the "borders." I found this discouraging but I also checked out DPReview's lens comparison tool, which shows the actual size of the zone that is sharp and the part that is not sharp. 

It showed that the Sigma is sharper than the Nikon 50 1.4G at wide apertures except at what I would consider the edges.  With this kind of lens, I don't consider edge sharpness important insofar as I mostly take photos of people, not landscapes.  In addition, I was planning to use this lens wide open anyway, which meant that unless I was focusing on a subject at the extreme edges of the frame, anything at the edge would most likely be outside the depth of field anyway, making any discussion of sharpness moot.  Reviews also agreed that it has low chromatic aberration and low vignetting.

So I got the Sigma, dubbed by some, to the dismay of Leica fans, as the Sigmalux.

FOCAL LENGTH

Before we talk about the Sigmalux, let's talk about normal primes in general.

A.  ON FULL FRAME

Almost all my lenses are and have been zoom lenses.  When I used the Sigma 50, I initially found it very limiting.  Sometimes it's too wide, and sometimes it's too long.  But my coauthor mshafik wisely suggested to stick it out.  After using it for a while and looking at the shots as a whole, I found that I got many kinds of shots from it, from shots of locations, to environmental portraits, to headshots, to details of objects.  Pretty much the same variety of shots that I get from a standard zoom.

shot of a location

environmental portrait

3/4 length portrait

details

So, I believe the normal prime is an alternative to the do-it-all 24-70.  You may want to know that Henri-Cartier Bresson shot most of his photos with a 50mm lens.  True, a 50mm doesn't have the same control over focal length that the 24-70 does, but in return I get better control over DOF, better sharpness (at f/2.8) and a higher shutter speed if I need it.  A reasonable trade IMO.

Moreover, after I resumed using my standard zoom again, I found that I was using it at 50mm more often.  What happened?  Here's what I figured out: I had been consciously choosing the focal length in determining my composition (considering the perspective, etc.).  That's good practice.  However, sometimes a normal perspective, neither exaggerated nor compressed, is exactly what I want.  This is not the same as passively disregarding the effect of focal length and "zooming with your feet" (which is faulty advice).  Instead, sometimes I consciously choose a normal focal length, for example when I don't want to distract the viewer with the focal length and instead want to invite the viewer to look at other aspects of the photograph such as its substance or lighting or depth of field or any other aspect.

B.  ON APS-C

As if the Sigma's versatility weren't enough, as a bonus, I can use the Sigma on an APS-C body as a short portrait lens with an equivalent focal length of 75mm.  It's shorter than what I would like for a portrait lens but I can get upper body portraits or even head-and-shoulders portraits with this focal length, especially if I want to make the background or environment a significant element of the composition.

Sigma on APS-C (Fuji S5)

Sigma on APS-C (D70)

DESCRIPTION

The 50 1.4 is part of Sigma's EX line of professional lenses, meaning it has a higher build quality than their non-EX lenses.  Like Sigma's EX lenses, it has a matte crinkle finish.  It does feel very solidly built to me, but to be honest I'm not very particular about that sort of thing and am more concerned with performance.

The most distinctive physical quality of the 50 1.4 is probably its size.  It is quite large for a nifty fifty.  It is about the same size as the Nikon 85 1.4D.  Size comparison here.  The filter size is 77mm -- huge for a 50 1.4 lens -- but very convenient because it is the same size as several of Canon's and Nikon's better lenses (e.g., 24-70, 70-200).

PERFORMANCE

A.  Bokeh

Bokeh is the quality of the out of focus areas.  It is subjective but most people prefer a smooth-looking bokeh (words such as "creamy" are often used to describe the bokeh of lenses such as the Nikon 85 1.4).

How smooth is the bokeh of the Sigma?  It's so smooth that if you rubbed a baby's butt on it, the bokeh would get scratched.  Yes, the Sigma has one of the smoothest, if not the smoothest, bokeh for a 50mm f/1.4 lens.

hypnotic bokeh

I also noticed that in a few shots, the bokeh seems to form a circular pattern around the middle of the frame, sometimes called "swirly bokeh".  I think it is a cool effect for portraits, but I can't get it consistently.

Is your head spinning?

Not all is perfect however.  When used wide open the Sigma does occasionally show onion-ring bokeh, which can bother some people.  This is because the Sigma has aspherical elements to minimize aberrations.  This is an issue that also affects other lenses such as the Nikon 50 1.4G, Nikon 24-70 and Canon 85L.  In the case of the Sigma, the rings are not very obvious but they can be seen on some highlights when closely examined, moreso than on the Nikon 50 1.4G.  Last test shot with a doll, I promise:

onion rings visible... if you can peel your eyes long enough from the bokeh blobs

The rings don't show up on farther highlights, and they also don't show up when the aperture is narrowed to f/2.0.  In any case, in the sample photos on this post, I did NOT screen out photos with the onion bokeh so you can see how often it shows up and judge for yourself how much of an issue it is in the real world.

B.  Sharpness

The Sigma is sharp at all apertures.  Wide open, it is reasonably sharp:

Glass orb at Bellagio Conservatory

Stopped down to f/2.0 it is very sharp.

Foie gras mushroom burger from Smith & Wollensky

From f/2.8 to f/8 it is crazy sharp (although at these apertures, Canon's 50 1.4 and Nikon 50 1.4 are just as sharp).

f/2.8 - SOOC, no sharpening or clarity adjustment

C.  Focusing

If you have not used a 50 1.4 lens before, be aware that at an aperture of f/1.4 the depth of field can be exceptionally thin when the subject is close.  With the slightest delay between the focus lock and the actual shutter release, the image won't be in focus.  When using this lens wide open for people shots, I usually hold down the shutter button, which means the camera will release the shutter as soon as focus is acquired.  I also get better results using flash and/or a very high shutter speed.  If the subject is moving, I narrow the aperture to f/1.8 or f/2.0.  If the subject is moving around a lot or there is more than one subject, then f/2.8 is probably the widest aperture I would try to use.

With those limits, the Sigma focused with reasonable speed and accuracy.  On my D3 I had to enter a -10 microfocus adjustment on my copy.  On my other cameras (S5, D70, D90) I don't have a microfocus adjustment capability but the lens focuses just fine.

Note: in Canon forums that discuss this lens, a number of people have expressed an issue about the Sigma's autofocus, exhibiting both front- and back-focus on the same copy (making it impossible to correct even with microfocus adjustment).  Many Canonistas who use this lens said that it required exchanging the lens a few times to find a good copy that doesn't have focusing errors.  Alternatively, some Canon shooters have sent their copies to Sigma for recalibration, with good results.

COMPARED TO OTHER 50MM LENSES

Here are some comparisons between the Sigma and other lenses.

• vs. Nikon 50 1.4G and 50 1.2 AIS: on Flickr's Sigma 50 1.4 group
• vs. Nikon 50 1.8D, 50 1.8G, 50 1.4D and 50 1.4G: Mansurovs review of the 50 1.8G - This is the only review I've seen that not just noted but also lambasted the Sigma for the onion bokeh.  Personally I think this review doesn't sound very neutral, but I'm providing it here anyway.
• vs. Canon 50 1.4 http://tommeinenphotography.com/50mm/ and  http://www.flickr.com/photos/-cr/6110453692/
• with Canon http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=943520&page=5 and http://www.flickr.com/photos/-cr/6110453692/
• with Pentax Super Takumar, Pentax SMC Takumar, Sigma 50/1.4 and Zeiss 50/1.4 AE: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/661966

SAMPLE SHOTS

Here are some more shots I took with this lens.  They have what I consider to be minor edits.  To give a more accurate idea of this lens' field of view, I avoided cropping and cropped only to change the frame ratio or to straighten the image.

A.  FULL FRAME

B.  APS-C

CONCLUSION

Although the Sigma is larger and more expensive than Canon's or Nikon's equivalent lens, it has bokeh that is quite possibly the smoothest of any 50mm lens in its class.  Moreover it can produce sharp photos even when used at wide apertures, including wide open.

I would say the Sigma is for someone who...
- Wants a lens for full frame with a focal length range that works with a wide range of subjects (not just portraits) or wants a short telephoto lens for an APS-C camera;
- Wants the smoothest bokeh bar none;
- Doesn't mind occasional onion ring bokeh;
- Wants the sharpest lens for full frame at wide apertures (wider than f/2.0).  Note: For crop-sensor, sharpness is just about the same as that of the Canon 50 1.4 or Nikon 50 1.4G;

- Gives higher priority to center sharpness than edge-to-edge sharpness;
- Doesn't mind the large size.

Note: There are fewer complaints about autofocus in the Nikon mount version of this lens, compared to the Canon version.

OTHER SAMPLE PHOTOS
Photography on the Net "Sigmalux" thread.  I didn't go through all 500+ pages of the thread, but I like the ones posted by Ximix .

Read More

Lightroom 4.1 now available

Lightroom 4.1 now available for download here.

Besides fixing some bugs and supporting additional cameras, LR 4.1 can process HDR TIFF files, has additional controls for correcting chromatic aberration, and can save photobooks in JPEG format.

Read More