- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Anyone used one and have anything to say about it? Considering something for occasions I need to shoot a little wider, but don't want to spend the earth.
Tokina AT-X 235 AF PRO 20-35mm f/2.8
- Thread starter The23rdman
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,850
- Name
- Phil aka Phiggys
- Edit My Images
- No
Had one for a short while having owned the Tokina AF 20-35mm f3.5-4.5 back in the 80s/90s.
Alas I didn't find it to be as good as it's cheaper brother so I traded it for the Nikon AFD 18-35mm f3.5/4.5.
If you are not looking to spend a lot of money check out Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4.0 I have been really impressed though filter ring size is 82mm !
Also Sigma AF 15-30mm gives excellent quality images for the cost both can be found s/h at good prices.
Test Shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phiggys/6141763840/in/photostream
Alas I didn't find it to be as good as it's cheaper brother so I traded it for the Nikon AFD 18-35mm f3.5/4.5.
If you are not looking to spend a lot of money check out Sigma 17-35mm f2.8/4.0 I have been really impressed though filter ring size is 82mm !
Also Sigma AF 15-30mm gives excellent quality images for the cost both can be found s/h at good prices.
Test Shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phiggys/6141763840/in/photostream
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks for that, but I've never bought a Sigma lens that has worked properly and I dont think I'll buy another.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,842
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I've used one on 30D and was pretty impressed. At f/8 it was mega sharp (cropped frame), but a bit dreamy wide open. I believe the lens has very little distortion, and oddly works best in manual focus mode. Flare control is poor though.
Nevertheless this is miles better than Sigma 17-35. I've seen lots of examples, worked from RAWs and it was always terrible even at low apertures.
For nikon though, there is an excellent 20mm prime - (may be MF?)
Nevertheless this is miles better than Sigma 17-35. I've seen lots of examples, worked from RAWs and it was always terrible even at low apertures.
For nikon though, there is an excellent 20mm prime - (may be MF?)
OP
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
MF is no good for me - my eyes are just not good enough. I'd not really considered a 20mm prime, but it would compliment my prime collection well.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,842
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
see KR site and photozone.de it is 'D' and AF
But I will insist to anyone that MF is the way forward with ultra wide lenses. You don't focus by looking through the viewfinder by the way - you place your focus purely by focus scale on the lens as long as you understand hyperfocal distance.
OP
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
Actually 20mm is probably too wide for me. This lens is for shooting people in confined spaces.