Tokina AT-X Pro 17mm F3.5

[Braineack]

NO AF NO CARE!

 

[shadowlands]

If you're shooting landscapes and architecture, who needs AF?

True. Nothing wrong with having it though. It can be a full manual lens as well. Either or, boom!

 

[480sparky]

If you're shooting landscapes and architecture, who needs AF?

True. Nothing wrong with having it though. It can be a full manual lens as well. Either or, boom!

Like my Tokina 17/3.5 SL?

(I'd toss up a photo, but since Photobucket screwed everyone.................)

 

[shadowlands]

If you're shooting landscapes and architecture, who needs AF?

True. Nothing wrong with having it though. It can be a full manual lens as well. Either or, boom!

Like my Tokina 17/3.5 SL?

(I'd toss up a photo, but since Photobucket screwed everyone.................)

Ha! True! Photobucket sure did!
Tokina rocks, period!

 

[Braineack]

I just ordered one. Probably same seller from OR on ebay?

 

[shadowlands]

I just ordered one. Probably same seller form OR on ebay?

Awesome! Yep, that's it. I hope you love it. I love mine. Like I've mentioned before, it's as good as the Nikon 20mm 2.8D. It's not as good as the Nikon 20mm 1.8G.
But, it's not at that price point, either. And I sold my 20mm 1.8G because at $700.00, I didn't need it that bad. But this lens, at under $200.00.. I can live with the imperfections.
It's built better than both mentioned Nikon's above. Communicates shooting information. And hey... 17mm on FX, is WIDE!

 

[shadowlands]

Here's all the goodies that came with it. It's honestly "new" old stock.

 

[Braineack]

The edges of that at 17mm look better than my 24-70 at 24mm... Even Ken Rockwell liked it


I feel like the 5.5" min focus could lead to some interesting perspective shots.

 

[shadowlands]

The edges of that at 17mm look better than my 24-70 at 24mm... Even Ken Rockwell liked it


I feel like the 5.5" min focus could lead to some interesting perspective shots.

The corners are soft wide open at 3.5. Not horrible, but soft. Middle is fine.
5.6 well enough. Most of my samples shots in the thread were shot at F8. It's fine by then.
Let me post a couple wide open F3.5 shots for you.

 

[shadowlands]

F3.5 wide open

 

[Braineack]

yeah most likely wont be shooting it at 3.5, and ill adjust for vertical, so it'll end up cropping a bit of that out anyway.

 

[shadowlands]

yeah most likely wont be shooting it at 3.5, and ill adjust for vertical, so it'll end up cropping a bit of that out anyway.

By F5.6 it's well enough. F8, no worries. In fact, I love it at F8, all the way to the corners, etc... Hell, my 20mm 2.8D was worse.

 

[Spirit Vision Photography]

I paid $190.00 I think, for mine, total shipped. It was a seller on eBay with a solid rating. It came "new" old-stock, complete with everything. I'm happy with it.
It's at least the quality for the Nikon AF 20mm F2.8FD (use to own it), but not as awesome as the Nikon 20mm 1.8G (use to own it).
For under $200.00 it's fantastic.
I didn't want to drop big money on ultra wide for I don't "go there" enough, but love owning one, when I do.

What is your opinion on the Nikon 20 f/2.8D glass?

Thanks

 

[snowbear]

What is your opinion on the Nikon 20 f/2.8D glass?

Thanks

Five year old thread, and OP hasn't been here for a year. Please pay attention to thread dates.
Locking it.