Guy says he hasn't taken his Tokina Opera off his D850 in 3 months

**ffking** · 10-11-2018, 11:42 PM

No, the astro shots aren't that great - mostly because the stars are out of focus or showing motion blur (no astro-tracer

) - but anything that encourages people to buy the lens is good for RI - either because of revenue or, for those in the know, reputation.

beholder3 · 10-12-2018, 12:37 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Medex

I could confirm that dfa* 50 has some coma issue mostly in the corners wide open that practically dissapears at f2.8-3.2.

When using the naming conventions used here I'd say that the lens shows no comatic aberrations, no tangential astigmatism and mild sagittal astigmatism.

The Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art shows about the same mild sagittal astigmatism plus some mild external comatic aberrrations.

I am quite sure that none of those two portrait lenses have been designed with any focus on astrophotography and quite rightfully so.

Wasp · 10-12-2018, 04:22 AM - **1 Like**

I am trying to figure out what he was trying to achieve with this image but I just don't get it. Star bokeh, meh.

No fault of the lens, I suppose.

**Belnan** · 10-12-2018, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Wasp

I am trying to figure out what he was trying to achieve with this image but I just don't get it. Star bokeh, meh.

No fault of the lens, I suppose.

I like it.

**RobA_Oz** · 10-12-2018, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by beholder3

When using the naming conventions used here I'd say that the lens shows no comatic aberrations, no tangential astigmatism and mild sagittal astigmatism.

Thank you for that link. It’s always good to take a refresher on these things, if, like me, you haven’t been involved in an area of study for a while. Perhaps we can persuade an owner of either lens to subject it to the test chart referenced in the article, and settle the debate about aberrations.

beholder3 · 10-12-2018, 11:36 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by RobA_Oz

Perhaps we can persuade an owner of either lens to subject it to the test chart referenced in the article, and settle the debate about aberrations.

I know for a fact that the upcoming PF review of the lens will have a section on aberrations with sample images.

The "settle the debate" thing won't ever work, because you'll always find one poor guy on the internet who claims to need "more / better" for his super specific personal wishlist.
I could easily name you three "poor quality" aspects of every lens ever manufactured on this planet if I was in that trolling state of mind.

Dr_who · 10-13-2018, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Medex

I could confirm that dfa* 50 has some coma issue mostly in the corners wide open that practically dissapears at f2.8-3.2.

could you post some samples at f2.8-f4

I've been looking forever for some samples

mee · 10-13-2018, 08:14 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by Wasp

I am trying to figure out what he was trying to achieve with this image but I just don't get it. Star bokeh, meh.

No fault of the lens, I suppose.

That was one of my fav of the photos. Wonderful colors and bokeh balls with focus on the church/cathedral bell tower. That's nice.

He explains what he was doing though right above the very photo: "Bokeh is round and beautiful and exactly what you would expect from a premium f/1.4 lens."

Why do we tear down people's photos so hastily?

sundown · 12-11-2018, 09:06 AM

I have an MTF chart question. Does anyone know why the Pentax one and Tokina one differ so much here:

HD Pentax-D FA 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW Lens Review
Tokina Opera 50mm f/1.4 FF Review

**Rondec** · 12-11-2018, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by sundown

I have an MTF chart question. Does anyone know why the Pentax one and Tokina one differ so much here:

HD Pentax-D FA 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW Lens Review
Tokina Opera 50mm f/1.4 FF Review

Different cameras and lens copy variation?

The Pentax version is stellar from wide open, while the Tokina not quite as good. The other thing is that CAs are significantly less on the Tokina version.

I guess this begs the question of Pentax is building the Tokina and they are just rebadging it or if Tokina is building their own based on Pentax's optical formula.

Kunzite · 12-11-2018, 09:43 AM

Testing variation is also a possibility.
I'd rather think of a combination of factors.

nzondlo · 12-13-2018, 06:45 PM

Tokina is using their own lens coatings. That's the one things lens manufacturers don't share with each other without you knowing it.

Reed · 12-14-2018, 12:43 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by nzondlo

Tokina is using their own lens coatings. That's the one things lens manufacturers don't share with each other without you knowing it.

Tokina for years used very "specific" coating tech that one will immediately hate or just pass by and don't care;] I dunno about those used on Opera, but ATX-Pro series got coating protection worse than Bayonet Takumars from 40 years ago IMO. Still, their lenses tend to be extreme sharp, if maintained correctly. Build quality is also very good.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax D FA* 50mm f1.4 and Tokina Opera 50mm f1.4	BROO	Pentax News and Rumors	135	09-23-2018 06:30 AM
People He is Irish and he loves his Guinnes	Mikhail_Kriviniouk	Post Your Photos!	4	09-09-2010 10:12 PM
She says "he has to quit drinking" ...he balances it out	Jack Simpson	General Talk	16	07-22-2009 10:02 AM
Adelaide Fringe Festival "That guy should put his TAMPAX in his camera bag" 5D user	Adrian Owerko	Post Your Photos!	15	03-08-2009 07:51 PM
I Guess He Doesn't Like His Pic Taken	vdubbin099	Post Your Photos!	4	05-31-2008 09:11 PM

10-11-2018, 11:42 PM	#16
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,038	No, the astro shots aren't that great - mostly because the stars are out of focus or showing motion blur (no astro-tracer ) - but anything that encourages people to buy the lens is good for RI - either because of revenue or, for those in the know, reputation.

10-12-2018, 12:37 AM - 1 Like	#17
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by Medex I could confirm that dfa* 50 has some coma issue mostly in the corners wide open that practically dissapears at f2.8-3.2. When using the naming conventions used here I'd say that the lens shows no comatic aberrations, no tangential astigmatism and mild sagittal astigmatism. The Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art shows about the same mild sagittal astigmatism plus some mild external comatic aberrrations. I am quite sure that none of those two portrait lenses have been designed with any focus on astrophotography and quite rightfully so.

10-12-2018, 04:22 AM - 1 Like	#18
Wasp Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Pretoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,659	I am trying to figure out what he was trying to achieve with this image but I just don't get it. Star bokeh, meh. No fault of the lens, I suppose.

10-12-2018, 01:45 PM	#19
Belnan Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Nova Scotia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,090	Originally posted by Wasp I am trying to figure out what he was trying to achieve with this image but I just don't get it. Star bokeh, meh. No fault of the lens, I suppose. I like it.

10-12-2018, 02:04 PM	#20
RobA_Oz Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tasmania, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,195	Originally posted by beholder3 When using the naming conventions used here I'd say that the lens shows no comatic aberrations, no tangential astigmatism and mild sagittal astigmatism. Thank you for that link. It’s always good to take a refresher on these things, if, like me, you haven’t been involved in an area of study for a while. Perhaps we can persuade an owner of either lens to subject it to the test chart referenced in the article, and settle the debate about aberrations.

10-12-2018, 11:36 PM - 2 Likes	#21
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	Originally posted by RobA_Oz Perhaps we can persuade an owner of either lens to subject it to the test chart referenced in the article, and settle the debate about aberrations. I know for a fact that the upcoming PF review of the lens will have a section on aberrations with sample images. The "settle the debate" thing won't ever work, because you'll always find one poor guy on the internet who claims to need "more / better" for his super specific personal wishlist. I could easily name you three "poor quality" aspects of every lens ever manufactured on this planet if I was in that trolling state of mind.

10-13-2018, 07:58 AM	#22
Dr_who Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 777	Originally posted by Medex I could confirm that dfa* 50 has some coma issue mostly in the corners wide open that practically dissapears at f2.8-3.2. could you post some samples at f2.8-f4 I've been looking forever for some samples

10-13-2018, 08:14 AM - 2 Likes	#23
mee Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,403	Originally posted by Wasp I am trying to figure out what he was trying to achieve with this image but I just don't get it. Star bokeh, meh. No fault of the lens, I suppose. That was one of my fav of the photos. Wonderful colors and bokeh balls with focus on the church/cathedral bell tower. That's nice. He explains what he was doing though right above the very photo: "Bokeh is round and beautiful and exactly what you would expect from a premium f/1.4 lens." Why do we tear down people's photos so hastily?

12-11-2018, 09:06 AM	#24
sundown Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 588	I have an MTF chart question. Does anyone know why the Pentax one and Tokina one differ so much here: HD Pentax-D FA 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW Lens Review Tokina Opera 50mm f/1.4 FF Review

12-11-2018, 09:33 AM	#25
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by sundown I have an MTF chart question. Does anyone know why the Pentax one and Tokina one differ so much here: HD Pentax-D FA 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW Lens Review Tokina Opera 50mm f/1.4 FF Review Different cameras and lens copy variation? The Pentax version is stellar from wide open, while the Tokina not quite as good. The other thing is that CAs are significantly less on the Tokina version. I guess this begs the question of Pentax is building the Tokina and they are just rebadging it or if Tokina is building their own based on Pentax's optical formula.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2018, 09:43 AM	#26
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Testing variation is also a possibility. I'd rather think of a combination of factors.

12-13-2018, 06:45 PM	#27
nzondlo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2016 Location: Scranton, PA Posts: 186	Tokina is using their own lens coatings. That's the one things lens manufacturers don't share with each other without you knowing it.

12-14-2018, 12:43 AM - 1 Like	#28
Reed Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Warsaw Photos: Gallery Posts: 638	Originally posted by nzondlo Tokina is using their own lens coatings. That's the one things lens manufacturers don't share with each other without you knowing it. Tokina for years used very "specific" coating tech that one will immediately hate or just pass by and don't care;] I dunno about those used on Opera, but ATX-Pro series got coating protection worse than Bayonet Takumars from 40 years ago IMO. Still, their lenses tend to be extreme sharp, if maintained correctly. Build quality is also very good.