Hi everybody
I am planning to buy a copy of this lens for my NEX-7. I know that there are single-coated and multi-coated versions and that the multi-coated should be better.
How can I recognize a multi-coated copy? Has it to be "RMC" instead of "SL"? or must I look at S/N?
The Tamron 17/3.5 adaptall 2 is a good alternative too and said to be a bit sharper than the Tokina by some, but also vice versa -- sample variation probably.
I LOVE this lens! I would ONLY sell it to help fund either a Samyang 14mm or Nikon 14-24.
Here are a few, taken with a Canon 1Ds. I am now using it on my Nikon F5. I haven't ever used the OM 18mm, but I wouldn't ever pay that much for the Oly. I highly doubt it is worth the extra $750. I paid $130 for this lens. This is coming from someone who has had the Oly 24mm 2.0, 24mm 2,8 - Oly 28mm 3,5 - Oly 50mm 3,5 Macro - (50mm 1,4 and 1,8 as well) Oly 35-70 3,6 and a few others, lol.
I remember that when I bought the Tokina last May (2011), I posted a thread here on if the Tokina would be as good as the Oly 24mm 2,0 as it was a superb lens itself. I tested the two lenses, and the Oly was sold.
Beautiful shots there! Yeh, the Oly does seem pretty well overpriced compared to the Tokina and the Tamron equivalents. Hard to find a detailed review of the lens though.
I think the RMC version is multicoated since RMC = Rainbow Multi Coating
Dustin, lovely picture, if you don't mind me asking, where was that second picture taken. It looks like the kind of place that I'd like to visit on vacation one of these days.
joxang wrote:
Beautiful shots there! Yeh, the Oly does seem pretty well overpriced compared to the Tokina and the Tamron equivalents. Hard to find a detailed review of the lens though.
Have a look at 16-9.net in the reviews section.
Also, there has been plenty of discussion about the Oly in this forum a few years ago. What I remember:
- very small/light lens
- sharp across the frame, but not as sharp in the center as some other lenses
- almost no distortion, which is quite unique for an 18mm lens
- perhaps more vignetting than other 18mm lenses because of the compact build?
- needs the original hood to mount filters, or you can use a combination of step-up rings to achieve the same thing
I was about to buy one of this 17 f3.5 seeing above shots...
Luckily I just thrown an email to Tokina. They dissuaded me from buying the 17 prime, saying it is a lens for film cameras, not for digital cams, and advised to buy 17-35 f4 @630
A good move from Tokina as they can not make profit from second hand sales . Could be better of course. I have just bought a Vivitar 17/3.5 which is a re-branded Tokina and goes for half the price! Got mine for £51 in well used but still good condition.
Thanks... but nobody answered my first question: how can I recognize the multi-coated Tokina vs the single coated?
Kenko Tokina speak for their lines is:
AT-X: Advanced technologies, top of the line lenses, with best coatings and often floating elements/groups as part of the optical design, sometimes with glass with special dispersion characteristics
RMC: Multicoated lenses, highly corrected for all kind of abberrations
SL: Standard Line, single coating, less high level correction for residual abberrations.
joxang wrote:
A minor hijack/addition....how does the OM 18mm compare to the above?
The Oly 18 stays in my bag ... I've not found a replacement for it yet, despite having looked at both the Tamron & Tokina. Sorry no sample comps. The vignetting on the Oly 18 corners come into play a bit ... but distortion and edge/corner resolution is tough to beat.
Although ... the Tokina 16-28 / 2.8 is on my radar.
If we recommend expensive lenses like Oly 18mm I might as well mention the modern Zeiss 18mm f3.5. Get it used for good price and you will neither regret nor loose money selling it in future. I wonder if anyone has compared these two directly?!
Yes, the comp of the Zeiss vs. Oly would make for an interesting one. I suspect we'll see the same faster vs. slower transitions and mustache vs. linear that are inherent trademarks to certain designs ... i.e. both good, with different drawing styles and the Zeiss having more micro-contrast than I'd expect from the Oly.
Hi Edgars Kalnins,
Please see the below link advising "Because of Film camera lens and Digital camera Lens is not same optical design. Digital CCD camera need Digital design lens."
How far is it true?
Also: Isn't a prime lens better than it's counterpart zoom by diff. of arraying lens elements ?
The full message:
" Dear Mr. Sunny Alan,
Sorry for my slow reply. Thank you very much for your interest to our product.
Tokina AF17mm f/3.5 is very good lens for Film camera.
It will function new canon DSLR Camera But We don't recommend to use it.
Because of Film camera lens and Digital camera Lens is not same optical design.
Digital CCD camera need Digital design lens.
I recommend you Tokina AT-X17-35 F4 PRO FX 17-35mm f4 lens
or AT-X107 NH 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 Fish Eye
Please get more information from www.tokinalens.com
Best Regards,
Max Morishita / Kenko Tokina Imaging India Pvt. Ltd.
IBC, M-38/1, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110 001 INDIA
Tel: +91-11-41571155 Mob: +91-981-849-9335 +91-989-291-3987 Japan
+81-80-3208-5571"
(Sorry, link is not working by some reason, hence the full body of message: Sunny)
Sunny,
I haven't got a degree in optics, so take my post as mere opinion. I have not heard that SLR lenses used on digital cameras require different optical design. As far as I understand, this would mainly apply to wide angle rangefinder lenses and not to the lens in question. The digital sensor causes more reflections thus the modern lens might have better coatings to battle this. I think that Tokina rep has exaggerated the issue here, as most of the members on this forum have been using lenses from film era with great success.
As for zoom vs prime: zoom lenses can be made very good (eg. contax, leica 35-70, nikon 14-24 to give just few examples) but are either slower in speed, more expensive and heavier. The build quality is usually lower in modern inexpensive lenses.
If you are not particularly interested in old manual lenses it is quite safe to go for a modern 3rd party zoom, I think they are quite good. They will cost you quite a bit more though.
