[RiceHigh]

Oh, no..!

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Scary Tokina 16-50/2.8 Official Sample Photos

Well, what shall we expect from the DA* 16-50/2.8 if the twin born Tokina produces pics like those??(!)

[benjikan]

Oh, no..!

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Scary Tokina 16-50/2.8 Official Sample Photos

Well, what shall we expect from the DA* 16-50/2.8 if the twin born Tokina produces pics like those??(!)

I'll have mine in about a week...We shall see waht we shall see...

[SupremeMoFo]

OK - I can't be bothered reading the stuff about it, annoying format - what exactly are the issues?

[roscot]

Micheal,
I usually do not respond to your posts. My attitude has
been, if you wish to p*** off people, that's your business. But you are getting a bit ridiculous here.

If you are going to make statements and quote people, tell the whole story. You ..... again ..... are just trying to sensationalize an issue.

Klaus also wrote:

"You can´t conclude anything from these pictures except that the photographer has a bad hair cut."

The shots are poorly exposed, some are completely out of focus. The 10-17 and 12-24 images look the same, and I know how good the 10-17 is. Pentax will have their own body, electronics, mechanicals, and coatings. I agree with the statement above.

The only thing I could tell from the lousy upsized, then downsized images is that I don't care for the Bokeh in the 3rd image. Pentax, as they have done with all their star lenses, will am I sure have 8-9 aperture blades in their version. That should resolve lousy bokeh. Other than that, I'll wait and see what the Pentax lenses produce.

[SupremeMoFo]

Kewl, I thought they were crap pics too.

[RiceHigh]

Micheal,
I usually do not respond to your posts. My attitude has
been, if you wish to p*** off people, that's your business. But you are getting a bit ridiculous here.

But anyone can always inspect the pics themselves as well as the discussion posts at the PZ forum for what I have pointed out for both links!

Also, don't get me wrong. There is no reason of any kind that I need to piss off people for what you people purely imagine yourselves.

If you are going to make statements and quote people, tell the whole story. You ..... again ..... are just trying to sensationalize an issue.

Klaus also wrote:

"You can´t conclude anything from these pictures except that the photographer has a bad hair cut."

Yes, that's Klaus's response following down the thread. But my simple opinion is that the Tokina samples are *scary* in technical sense. Am I wrong here?

The shots are poorly exposed, some are completely out of focus.

So, you can see the same here. No difference. But do note there are also obvious blue fringing and blur for those in-focus photos. There are strange color cast plus strange WB in shadows or for the whole picture too!

You can always suspect the body, i.e., the Fuji S3 Pro, but I bet it's unlikely because of the S3!

The only thing I could tell from the lousy upsized, then downsized images is that I don't care for the Bokeh in the 3rd image. Pentax, as they have done with all their star lenses, will am I sure have 8-9 aperture blades in their version. That should resolve lousy bokeh. Other than that, I'll wait and see what the Pentax lenses produce.

The lens has 9 blades, as you can see in the macro flower pic.

[Simon]

Move along, move along. Don't feed the troll.

[roscot]

Also, don't get me wrong. There is no reason of any kind that I need to piss off people for what you people purely imagine yourselves.

Why do you think people react to your posts the way they do?
You obviously don't know, so I will tell you.

1. You, by your own admission are not a photographer, you are a measurbator(or what ever). Your hobby is testing photo equipment not taking photos.
2. A lot of the problems you find, in testing, simply have no bearing in everyday real world photography. By the way, the same comment applies to Phil's review.
3. People have invested a lot of money in their camera system, and then you come along with all your constant "Problem" posts and are essentially inferring to them, they made a very bad decision and have wasted their money on a crappy camera system. People do not like to be told they make bad decisions. Especially when you are wrong. This is human nature. People will react badly, and do so.

Yes, that's Klaus's response following down the thread. But my simple opinion is that the Tokina samples are *scary* in technical sense. Am I wrong here?

So, you can see the same here. No difference. But do note there are also obvious blue fringing and blur for those in-focus photos. There are strange color cast plus strange WB in shadows or for the whole picture too!

You can always suspect the body, i.e., the Fuji S3 Pro, but I bet it's unlikely because of the S3!

They are scary only in the sense that they represent very bad photography, and are more representative of the photographers lack of skill. If I had listened to you over the last 3 years, I would think I am unable to produce a usable photograph with any of my Pentax gear, it is so bad. I'm not claiming to be the worlds best photographer, But I've had my share of "keepers" The fact is, all camera systems have their limitations, which are offset by their positive features. It is a big compromise. The key is to work with in those limitations. If you can't find another system that has a feature/limitation compromise that you can work with. I happen to like Pentax's solution.

The lens has 9 blades, as you can see in the macro flower pic.

I stand corrected.

I'll still wait for the Pentax version with SMC coatings, and a more capable tester. I really do not think Pentax would be stupid enough to risk the Star lens reputation on a second rate lens design (and I'm not convinced the Tokina version is second rate either).

[roentarre]

I really do not think Pentax would be stupid enough to risk the Star lens reputation on a second rate lens design (and I'm not convinced the Tokina version is second rate either).

I second that opinion.

Da* 50-135 seemed to have some stark contrast in these test images. I see a lot of potential in that series of sample shots.

I hate the fact that most sample shots were taken as f8 or above which are not really showing the capabilities of these lenses...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

RiceHigh, I would prefer to see the actual sample photos through its direct link instead of going through your blogs. It is almost like you trying to improve the click rate of your blog site ...

[roscot]

I second that opinion.
RiceHigh, I would prefer to see the actual sample photos through its direct link instead of going through your blogs. It is almost like you trying to improve the click rate of your blog site ...

Well now, that's the point, don't you think?
(I guess I'm in a feisty mood today)

[Falcons]

I aint saying nothing!

[roscot]

Smart person

[joele]

LAST WARNING RH..

There was no need to advertise your blog RH, you could have just posted the link here...

You have been privately asked politely, more than once, by other moderators here not to do that.. Yet you continue, and recently you even demanded that moderators do not change your post as you blatantly defy our simple request..

You are a guest here, this is not your blog... Either play by the rules or leave...

[jfdavis58]

Somebody here called you Michael; Roscot I think. That's a good thing to know; ricehigh always sounded rather...

This isn't really directed at you, Michael, except to say that once again I've experienced your Blog and come away feeling dirty and disgusted.

But I'm supposed to play nice, hide my feelings and avoid p...ssing people off. Or so I'm often told by folks with just a few posts to their credit. So I'm left writing milquetoast posts and admiring others for finally finding their 'voice' and telling you like it is. Good for them!

[RiceHigh]

Joele, I really feel extremely shameful on you as you again use your "moderator" role to impose a threat on me against *my* opinion which is different from yours.

Also, *what* "rules" here does NOT allow anyone to post URLs here within a post?

For what you accuse me of in your this *post* (I'm afraid you can't do your moderator job well in a fair and unbiased way for what I can see, you're simply a poster who will become a moderator when it is needed - for a different opinion which you can't tolerate), the truth is *only* Mo / Adam sent me some PMs before, I do believe we have some kinds of friendly and frankly conversations instead of what you supposed, i.e. warnings.

BTW, you're the *only* one here who've threatened me (but I'm not afraid of you as the *internet* community will judge, even you kill me here).

In the meantime, I shall not leave here myself just because of one person who have the power over the forum try to penalise on me, unless you murder me by your power here as what George suspected (you would do) long ago.

LAST WARNING RH..

There was no need to advertise your blog RH, you could have just posted the link here...

You have been privately asked politely more than once by other moderators here not to do that.. you continue, and recently you even demanded that moderators do not change your post as you blatantly defy our simple request..

You are a guest here, this is not your blog... Either play by the rules or leave...