17mm Comparison: Tamron vs. Tokina-made Vivitar

[cooltouch]

I've been trying to get this comparison done for over a month, and I wanted to do the comparison out doors but the weather here has been miserable for photography. A few times, the lighting situation was marginal so I gave it a try, but the test results I got were puzzling, if not infuriating. Well, today, for the first time in a long time, we've had really nice weather. So I get out these two lenses and decide I'm gonna put them through their paces. But unfortunately I got hung up doing other stuff -- you know, responsibilities, and I didn't finish up until later in the afternoon.

The test camera is a Sony NEX 7. The Vivitar, built by Tokina with a 37xxxx... serial number, is a 17mm f/3.5 in Canon FD mount. I've owned this lens for a few years and I've taken some pics with it using my Canon FD film gear. It has always done a good job with landscapes and scenics, not as good with architecture because of rather pronounced barrel distortion. The Tamron, on the other hand, is a relatively new acquisition and I haven't done much with it, mostly because I don't own an FF digital and I haven't done any 35mm film shooting since I bought it. Now, this test is something I've been wanting to get to so I could try it out, but well, read the first paragraph again.

So today I still had good light, but it was going kind of fast, so I didn't have the time to put these two lenses through a comprehensive set of tests. Instead I chose my house and environs as a subject and limited all aperture values to f/8. I took four pics with each lens of identical subjects. The NEX 7 was set to Aperture priority at ISO 100. I did absolutely nothing for PP besides converting from RAW to jpg. I didn't even resize the images. I uploaded the images using the forum's "Upload picture" utility, so I suspect that if you click on any of them, they might be kind of big.

Here's what I have to say about the two lenses so far: Both show good sharpness toward the center of the frame, but noticeable sharpness falloff by the edges and corners -- keep in mind that I'm shooting an APS-C camera here. Also evident on the sides of most frames are some noticeable red and blue fringing (it's blue at least on this cheesy little notebook's monitor I'm having to use; it might be green on yours) -- noticeable at 100% that is. Another thing that I noticed was the lens's different characters. The Vivitar felt very much like an ultra-wide-angle lens. Tons of field depth requiring minimal, if any, focusing. Whereas the Tamron felt much more like a normal lens. I actually had to pay attention to my focusing with it much more than I did with the Vivitar. Quite unusual for an ultra-wide to behave that way.

Okay, here we go. With each photo pair, I'm showing the Tamron and then the Vivitar.
















So what do you think? Did you take a look at the actual size images? Not very special, are they? In fact, I'd go ahead and say they're plain awful. But here's the thing -- I can show you the same size images that I took with the Vivitar 17 and a film camera, and they're much better than this. Which raises the question, why are these images so bad when taken with my NEX 7?

I should like to point out one thing of note. See the rather dark band running across the top of the first pair of photos? That's actually a shadow caused by the house's awning. It provides a convenient ruler -- a rather bent one -- to compare the photos against the edge of their frames for barrel distortion. As you can see, it is there on both lenses, more so on the Vivitar than the Tamron. If you look closely, you can see some detail inside the shadow area, which tend to exaggerate this condition even more.

Well, I've run out of time for now -- it's dark outside. But stay tuned. Tomorrow I will be giving the Tamron 17mm a try on my EOS XS, using a Nikon adapter. I'd rather not use my FD to EOS adapter for the Vivitar because it has glass and will foul things up, so the Vivitar won't get tested. Also, after I'm finished shooting with the Tamron on my EOS, I will then mount my mighty 18-55mm kit lens and shoot the same subjects again with the lens set to 18mm at f/8. That's close enough to 17mm such that I think the comparison might be . . . interesting.

For further discussion: I seem to recall reading recently comments in a forum about how ultra-wide lenses did not work all that well on a NEX -- or maybe it was the A7. If it was the A7, then what's up with what's going on here? Would anyone like to take a stab at what's going on here? Besides "operator error"? It wasn't camera shake -- I was getting nice shutter speeds still. And it wasn't focusing errors either. I relied some on focus peaking and some on the camera zooming in to 10x image size. Plus, I checked focus after each take and deleted any image in which at least the center of the image wasn't acceptably sharp.

[480sparky]

I have the actual Tokina 17/3.5, and I can't tell the difference between it and my 17-35 Nikkor AF-D @ 17mm, save for the difference in distortion. When pixel-peeping, it's a close horse race.

[Lloydy]

I've used the Tokina on my NEX 5 and A6000 and like it a lot. I'll have a look at some architectural pictures and see what the distortion is like, if it's not snowing I might take some pictures.
I haven't got any other wide lenses to compare it too, but I did borrow a Sigma 16 Filtermatic a while back and hated that, the distortion was just too much for my liking.
I wouldn't be surprised if your kit lens beats both lenses hands down, the 18-55 Pentax lens is a genuine surprise on it's widest setting.

[Lloydy]

Here's two pictures I took on the day I got the lens of my wife out in the garden. Both pictures show the distortion, in one picture our house is more or less level and the neighbours to the left is very tiled, the other picture shows a tilt on both houses - but look carefully and the difference of point of view and camera angle are very slight, I think I just raised - lowered the camera very slightly. I didn't move position. The difference is a lot, I hadn't noticed just how much before now.

[Ramon]

[PBFACTS]

[cooltouch]

Thanks for the explanation, Ramon. Yours reminds me now of the one I'd read before. It certainly explains a lot.

So Lloyd, did you use your NEX 5 or A6000 for those two photos? They came out pretty good. I can see just a bit of softness on the corners. Perhaps the design of the "light buckets" on your cameras' sensors are more agreeable with wide angle lenses than my NEX 7's design.

So then, what -- have lens makers managed to design very wide angle optics for APS-C and MFT sensors such that this sharpness falloff is minimized? Corrected the image somehow before it enters the cameras such that it enters at a minimal angle? It's still early here and the light is kinda soft. I'm gonna wait a bit befoe I try the Tamron or the kit lens.

[cooltouch]

[calvin83]

The other test shows the same result that the Tamron is wider than the Tokina.
http://oldlenses.blogspot.hk/2012/09/tamron-sp-17mm-f35-vs-tokina-rmc-17mm.html

[Lloydy]

I used the A6000 for those pictures, and to be honest I wasn't that happy with the sharpness. I have had sharper pictures at similar distnces with the Tokina.

[cooltouch]

Okay I have some more pics to add that might be enlightening. Just a short while ago, I shot a few images with both the Tamron 17 and the Canon 18-55 kit lens using my Canon XS instead of the NEX. Three photos each, beginning with the Tamron. Again, these images have not had any post processing done to them at all besides being converted from raw to jpg. And yes, I know, the full-view images of the tree look to be about 1/2 stop overexposed -- which I could have fixed in post, but I didn't because, like I just wrote, no PP of any sort was done.

Tamron 17mm f/3.5 @ f/8:


Painted wood trim on the barn you see along the left edge of the above photo. Tamron 17mm @ f/8


Another shot of the painted trim. Tamron 17mm f/3.5 @ f/3.5


Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-4.5 II @ 18mm & f/8


Painted wood trim of the barn, Canon 18-55 @ 18mm & f/8


Again the painted wood trim. Canon 18-55 @ 18mm & f/3.5


The images seem to hold their sharpness a bit better with the 10.1mp Canon. I think I might have slightly missed exact focus on a couple of the images or inadvertently tilted the camera away from being parallel to the surface on a couple of the close focus shots -- an easy thing to do. But they're good enough to convince me this: if I really want to put these two 17's through a rigorous set of tests, I'm either gonna have to shoot a fine-grained film with a 35mm camera, or borrow a FF digital, because the NEX is definitely not cutting it and the Canon is of marginal use because its viewfinder image is so small and even using Live View doesn't always help, especially not in bright sun as it was today.

So I go to all this trouble and all I can say at this point is that my tests are inconclusive. Stay tuned. I think I still have some Plus-X Pan in the freezer, which should work well for a film test because of its fine grain.

[Kei]

My tamron 17mm f3.5 is best on film. On digital it suffers from a fairly strong level of CA towards the corners no matter what aperture. My particular sample seems softer on the right side vs the rest. I reckon there is also some field curvature as focusing using live view for the corners results in the centre being out of focus. From all I have read, the tokina is supposed to be virtually equal to the tamron.

Some samples off full frame digital:
IMG_6840 by --Kei--, on Flickr

IMG_6841 by --Kei--, on Flickr

Some samples from film:
Velvia 100
Venice7 by --Kei--, on Flickr

Fujicolor Pro 400H (bottom right is a person)
VeniceStMarks- by --Kei--, on Flickr

[cooltouch]

Thanks for the examples, guys. They're actually a big help. Interesting that it seems y'all prefer using these lenses with film cameras. Well, that's fine with me cuz I have several film cameras that are new to my stable that need to be tested out anyway. This should be fun!

Oh, a question for you all who shoot a lot of B&W. What's a reasonably priced fine grain B&W film these days? About all I've ever used has been Tri-X and Plus X Pan.

[Abbazz]

[TrueLoveOne]

I have never had the Tamron, but always enjoyed the Tokina 17 on digital as well as film, i'm a great fan of this lens!

Here's an example on the Canon 5D:
Kustmarathon Zeeland by René Maly, on Flickr

And one on Sony NEX3:
Delivery! by René Maly, on Flickr

And one on Kodak film:
Kuiperspoort Middelburg by René Maly, on Flickr

[cooltouch]

Well, René, the Tokina appears to be well behaved with your cameras. I note the decent sharpness on the far right edge of the shot with your NEX 3. Perhaps the 3's sensor doesn't act so poorly to the angle of the light at the edges as the 7's sensor does.

Hey Abbazz, OK, I'll keep an eye out for Ilford Pan F. Last night I was going through my stash of frozen film and realized with some dismay that I'm down to my last roll of Plus-X Pan (ISO 125). I also discovered some ISO 125 Ilford. FP4, one roll of it. I have no idea how old it is, but on the side of the container it reads "ASA 125" and not ISO. I'll wager it's similar to the Plus X, given that Plus X is also ISO 125.

Thanks for the Freestyle link. I visit them on a regular basis, always interested in seeing what's new.

I have probably a dozen rolls, at least five still in boxes, of 36 exp Fuji Neopan ISO 1600 Professional. It's been in my freezers since about 1992 or so and was kept frozen (or so I was told) before I owned it. Purchased at WalMart for $3.95 a roll, no date on the WalMart price stickers or expiration date on the boxes the way Kodak always has. I'm thinking it's probably pretty grainy stuff, but it might be fun to use, especially in low light scenarios. I've never used any of it because I don't often find myself in such low-light scenarios where I'm thinking of photographing them.

After doing some googling, I noticed with some dismay that Fuji's film offerings are continuing to dwindle, especially in importance. Fuji's USA website shows only three color films, its international site shows four plus four chrome emulsions, and neither site shows any B&W anymore. I had to google it to find a link at Fuji for any B&W emulsions and they are down to one now -- Neopan 100. I guess they discontinued 400 when they discontinued Provia 400. Honestly I wonder how much longer it's gonna be before the company changes its name from Fujifilm to just plain Fuji. It seems silly to be named after film products when they are now such a small part of the corporate makeup.

These days anymore, I have a digital darkroom or hybrid darkroom, if you will. Actually the term "darkroom" is misleading because I don't have one. I have a changing bag and that's the extent of anything dark that I use except for my developing tanks. I scan my film and slides and print them out on photo paper on my printer.