The Tokina 17mm f/3.5 is not well-known by most of today's digital SLR photographers, what with all the fantastic zooms available that offer wonderful sharpness and speed at a quite affordable price.
However, for those seeking the utmost in image quality AND lens build quality, the prices can climb VERY quickly and the size / weight of the lenses also increase, while the zoom range of zooms will lessen. You can expect to spend about $1,000, or sometimes much more, on a 30+ oz lens that zooms only 2x or 3x.
For those who require the "super-wide" field of view (hereafter referred to as FOV) in the 16-20mm range, the only and closest alternative to these expensive zooms (on a DSLR) is an aspherical "ultrawide" prime lens usually 14mm in focal length. These lenses all have huge, bulbous front elements and permanent lens hoods, making them very impractical for landscape shooting where a circular polarizer is on your lens 90% of the time.
The Tokina, if I am correct, is the WIDEST 35mm prime lens available with front thread-in filters. It is built heavy-duty and is sharp as a tack, but weighs in at only 15 oz. and sells for JUST $200-350, depending on which camera mount you need. It gives a FOV equivalent to 25.5mm on a 1.5x Nikon DSLR, or 27.2mm on a 1.6x Canon DSLR, for reference.
While I do sometimes enjoy the FOV that true 17mm gives me, (either a 17mm lens mounted on a 35mm film SLR or an 11-12mm lens mounted on a Nikon DSLR) I find that MOST of my landscape photography is shot around 24mm. Maybe I'm subliminally immitating the late Galen Rowell who also favored this focal length, but I feel that 24mm usually fits what I want to capture, and therefore I think this lens will often find itself on my camera when I'm backpacking or camping or hiking, and want to keep things simple.
I also am a firm believer that limiting one's self to a single focal length, instead of being able to zoom, lends itself to more careful compositions and effective, powerful photographs. This is a dangerous method because sometimes you REALLY do need to zoom in or out to perfect a composition, but I prer it. You should make your own call, though...
I wish they made a 16mm "prime" lens that has front filter threads and would give me a true 24mm FOV on my DSLR, but such a lens does not exist, nor would it cost just $250 yet be as sharp as this Tokina if it did exist. Maybe with the popularity of DSLR's and a large number of owners prefering the quality and cost-effectiveness of 1.5x sensors, we will some day see a "DX" 16mm prime lens for $300-400 and 13 oz. and with front threads, but until then I'll be holding onto my new Tokina!
However, for those seeking the utmost in image quality AND lens build quality, the prices can climb VERY quickly and the size / weight of the lenses also increase, while the zoom range of zooms will lessen. You can expect to spend about $1,000, or sometimes much more, on a 30+ oz lens that zooms only 2x or 3x.
For those who require the "super-wide" field of view (hereafter referred to as FOV) in the 16-20mm range, the only and closest alternative to these expensive zooms (on a DSLR) is an aspherical "ultrawide" prime lens usually 14mm in focal length. These lenses all have huge, bulbous front elements and permanent lens hoods, making them very impractical for landscape shooting where a circular polarizer is on your lens 90% of the time.
The Tokina, if I am correct, is the WIDEST 35mm prime lens available with front thread-in filters. It is built heavy-duty and is sharp as a tack, but weighs in at only 15 oz. and sells for JUST $200-350, depending on which camera mount you need. It gives a FOV equivalent to 25.5mm on a 1.5x Nikon DSLR, or 27.2mm on a 1.6x Canon DSLR, for reference.
While I do sometimes enjoy the FOV that true 17mm gives me, (either a 17mm lens mounted on a 35mm film SLR or an 11-12mm lens mounted on a Nikon DSLR) I find that MOST of my landscape photography is shot around 24mm. Maybe I'm subliminally immitating the late Galen Rowell who also favored this focal length, but I feel that 24mm usually fits what I want to capture, and therefore I think this lens will often find itself on my camera when I'm backpacking or camping or hiking, and want to keep things simple.
I also am a firm believer that limiting one's self to a single focal length, instead of being able to zoom, lends itself to more careful compositions and effective, powerful photographs. This is a dangerous method because sometimes you REALLY do need to zoom in or out to perfect a composition, but I prer it. You should make your own call, though...
I wish they made a 16mm "prime" lens that has front filter threads and would give me a true 24mm FOV on my DSLR, but such a lens does not exist, nor would it cost just $250 yet be as sharp as this Tokina if it did exist. Maybe with the popularity of DSLR's and a large number of owners prefering the quality and cost-effectiveness of 1.5x sensors, we will some day see a "DX" 16mm prime lens for $300-400 and 13 oz. and with front threads, but until then I'll be holding onto my new Tokina!
Whoa, that's a lot of lens flare!
One disadvantage to shooting with a 35mm "full frame" lens on a DSLR is the "extra glass" that is there beyond the part you're capturing through. This extra glass or extra size makes it easier to catch stray sunlight and splay it all acros your image, as you see here. There seem to be more flare circles than there are elements in the lens!
For me however, this is a problem that's easily solved, and has a little-known or discussed advantage: The extra room you have when shooting any "full frame" lens on a 1.5x DSLR is that you have a HUGE comfort zone when you want to use filters on your lenses and avoid vignetting. Especially for a landscape photographer who frequently shoots with a circular polarizer, or (sometimes AND) a "graduated neutral density" filter system that mounts up to 3 square filters.
When you buy a lens that is built exactly for a specific format of sensor or film, especially at angles wider than 28mm, you don't have much room for filters before you start to get interference vignetting, and sometimes you have to buy "slim" filters or custom-modify your filter system...
I'll report back once I upgrade my filter system to accomodate this new 77mm filter thread size, but I'm confident that I'll be able to use at least two filters before I start to notice any vignetting effects...
NOTE:
Don't forget to view the full size image and see for yoursellf just how sharp this lens is! The photo was a NEF file processed in Photoshop CS2.
One disadvantage to shooting with a 35mm "full frame" lens on a DSLR is the "extra glass" that is there beyond the part you're capturing through. This extra glass or extra size makes it easier to catch stray sunlight and splay it all acros your image, as you see here. There seem to be more flare circles than there are elements in the lens!
For me however, this is a problem that's easily solved, and has a little-known or discussed advantage: The extra room you have when shooting any "full frame" lens on a 1.5x DSLR is that you have a HUGE comfort zone when you want to use filters on your lenses and avoid vignetting. Especially for a landscape photographer who frequently shoots with a circular polarizer, or (sometimes AND) a "graduated neutral density" filter system that mounts up to 3 square filters.
When you buy a lens that is built exactly for a specific format of sensor or film, especially at angles wider than 28mm, you don't have much room for filters before you start to get interference vignetting, and sometimes you have to buy "slim" filters or custom-modify your filter system...
I'll report back once I upgrade my filter system to accomodate this new 77mm filter thread size, but I'm confident that I'll be able to use at least two filters before I start to notice any vignetting effects...
NOTE:
Don't forget to view the full size image and see for yoursellf just how sharp this lens is! The photo was a NEF file processed in Photoshop CS2.
These test images are 100% crops of 11.2 megapixel interpolations of 6 megapixel NEF files from a Nikon D70 in Photoshop CS2.
The left image is a crop of the upper-left corner and the right image is a crop of the center of he frame.
f/3.5
While you might see the more professional lenses beat out the Tokina at an apeture like this, I really don't mind a bit of corner softness since I don't shoot landscapes at f/3.5 ever, and when I do use f/3.5 it has never been an application where the corners mattered. Maybe this isn't an acceptable softness for some shooters; you'll probably have to give in and buy the $1000 +/- professional lenses. However for myself it's simply never been an issue so I'm perfectly happy with it.
The left image is a crop of the upper-left corner and the right image is a crop of the center of he frame.
f/3.5
While you might see the more professional lenses beat out the Tokina at an apeture like this, I really don't mind a bit of corner softness since I don't shoot landscapes at f/3.5 ever, and when I do use f/3.5 it has never been an application where the corners mattered. Maybe this isn't an acceptable softness for some shooters; you'll probably have to give in and buy the $1000 +/- professional lenses. However for myself it's simply never been an issue so I'm perfectly happy with it.
f/4
f/5.6
f/8
I think there is an accidentaly tonality difference between the center and the corner, but it does look to me like the corner sharpness is just about "there", and quite a sharpness it is! I'm incredibly impressed with the sharpness of this lens. It delivers detail at 11.2 interpolated megapixels what most lenses do at native resolution!
UPDATE: Some will not be satisfied with a center-to-corner inconsistency even as small as this.
However to put this inconsistency in perspective, you should view my next review, of the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX, which is considered one of the highest quality lenses around.
I compared it at 17mm against this Tokina, and the Tokina actually beats the Nikon at f/8, both at the center and in the corners. In fact I would go so far as to say that the Tokina resolves more detail than the Nikon can. And the Nikon costs $1200...
I think there is an accidentaly tonality difference between the center and the corner, but it does look to me like the corner sharpness is just about "there", and quite a sharpness it is! I'm incredibly impressed with the sharpness of this lens. It delivers detail at 11.2 interpolated megapixels what most lenses do at native resolution!
UPDATE: Some will not be satisfied with a center-to-corner inconsistency even as small as this.
However to put this inconsistency in perspective, you should view my next review, of the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX, which is considered one of the highest quality lenses around.
I compared it at 17mm against this Tokina, and the Tokina actually beats the Nikon at f/8, both at the center and in the corners. In fact I would go so far as to say that the Tokina resolves more detail than the Nikon can. And the Nikon costs $1200...
f/11
f/16
This is the "fuzzy-ing sharpness" that you get due to diffraction. (No idea how that works, so don't ask!)
f/22
While some people would NEVER shoot at f/22 on a DSLR due to the diffraction affects, I'll shoot at this apeture if I simply must, whether for motion blur of a subject or for depth of field. (DOF) All it means is that I can't print the picture as big...
The Tokina has a bit of chromatic aberration in the extreme corners of it's frame, at all apetures.
For someone without the proper correction software this can be a great nuisance and a "no deal" for the lens, but most image editing software can easily correct this.
In fact when I shoot in RAW, I can simply dial in a pre-set correction that can be instantly applied to all the pictures I shot with the lens. I never have to worry about the CA again!
OTHER Technical aspects of the lens:
~ DISTORTION:
The Tokina, unlike almost ALL Nikon wide angle lenses, exhibits no noticeable barrel distortion, where the horizon or any other straight line bends when you place itnear and parallel to the edge of the image. This was also something I would correct in Photoshop, but it was much less effortless than the CA correction, and a nuisance. I'm so glad it's gone!
~ AUTOFOCUS / MANUAL FOCUS:
The lens has ridiculously ample DOF, and shooting at f/11 for example can achieve focus from infinity to 1.2 feet, so I think the autofocus of this lens won't see much wear and tear. Having said that, it performs very well when it is needed, and though it's not as silent as the SWM or HSM motors of some of the newer Nikon and Sigma lenses, it is still pretty quiet, quick, and completely accurate.
Changing the lens from auto to manual focusing can be a bit of a trick. The whole entire focusing ring IS the AF/MF switch; it is a clutch mechanism that works as follows: Sliding forward dis-engages the focus ring and allows the lens to AF internally without having to turn the external AF ring. Sliding rear-ward engages the focus ring, and either the AF motor must move this AF ring if it wants to autofocus, (which is perfectly fine and doesn't seem to affect the AF performance) ...or you can flip the AF/MF switch on your camera body to MF and take control of focus yourself. NOTE: Do NOT forget to flip the camera body's switch to MF! (if you have a Nikon)
There's a bit of a nuance with regard to the AF / MF clutch that I'll clear up in case anyone can't figure it out. It's a bit hard to explain, but here goes:
When in manual focus, you can slide the focus ring forward at any rotation position you wish. HOWEVER, If you wish to go BACK to manual focus from autofocus, you must go back to that specific rotation position where you "left" manual focus in the first place, or if you have autofocused you must find where the lens has autofocused TO and rotate the focus ring to that position... This is because the focus markings are etched right onto the focus ring, and you must always return the focus markings to the actual focus setting (and correct DOF scale) that corresponds with them!
For this reason, I don't think I'll be sliding the AF mechanism forward much at all, because I like to keep track of my DOF scale. Otherwise, at a quick glance I might forget and be mislead by the DOF scale of the dis-engaged focus ring!
For someone without the proper correction software this can be a great nuisance and a "no deal" for the lens, but most image editing software can easily correct this.
In fact when I shoot in RAW, I can simply dial in a pre-set correction that can be instantly applied to all the pictures I shot with the lens. I never have to worry about the CA again!
OTHER Technical aspects of the lens:
~ DISTORTION:
The Tokina, unlike almost ALL Nikon wide angle lenses, exhibits no noticeable barrel distortion, where the horizon or any other straight line bends when you place itnear and parallel to the edge of the image. This was also something I would correct in Photoshop, but it was much less effortless than the CA correction, and a nuisance. I'm so glad it's gone!
~ AUTOFOCUS / MANUAL FOCUS:
The lens has ridiculously ample DOF, and shooting at f/11 for example can achieve focus from infinity to 1.2 feet, so I think the autofocus of this lens won't see much wear and tear. Having said that, it performs very well when it is needed, and though it's not as silent as the SWM or HSM motors of some of the newer Nikon and Sigma lenses, it is still pretty quiet, quick, and completely accurate.
Changing the lens from auto to manual focusing can be a bit of a trick. The whole entire focusing ring IS the AF/MF switch; it is a clutch mechanism that works as follows: Sliding forward dis-engages the focus ring and allows the lens to AF internally without having to turn the external AF ring. Sliding rear-ward engages the focus ring, and either the AF motor must move this AF ring if it wants to autofocus, (which is perfectly fine and doesn't seem to affect the AF performance) ...or you can flip the AF/MF switch on your camera body to MF and take control of focus yourself. NOTE: Do NOT forget to flip the camera body's switch to MF! (if you have a Nikon)
There's a bit of a nuance with regard to the AF / MF clutch that I'll clear up in case anyone can't figure it out. It's a bit hard to explain, but here goes:
When in manual focus, you can slide the focus ring forward at any rotation position you wish. HOWEVER, If you wish to go BACK to manual focus from autofocus, you must go back to that specific rotation position where you "left" manual focus in the first place, or if you have autofocused you must find where the lens has autofocused TO and rotate the focus ring to that position... This is because the focus markings are etched right onto the focus ring, and you must always return the focus markings to the actual focus setting (and correct DOF scale) that corresponds with them!
For this reason, I don't think I'll be sliding the AF mechanism forward much at all, because I like to keep track of my DOF scale. Otherwise, at a quick glance I might forget and be mislead by the DOF scale of the dis-engaged focus ring!
in this box: