Jump to content

Tokina 17-35 f 4 First Impressions


andre_noble5

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

Apologies for not posting 100% crops as I would like.

 

Nevertheless I want to share first impressions after shooting about 150 images with the Tokina 17 35 f4 on my Nikon D300 using mirror

lock up. This is a full frame lens on a DX body (so I did not get a chance to evaluate border and corners).

 

Build quality feels similar to my Nikon 20-35 f2.8 AFD

 

The lens is spectacular at the wider focal lengths: ultrasharp from 5.6 up.

At 35mm however, the lens doesnt get sharp until sometime after 5.6 (It is super sharp at f8).

 

Peculiarly, at 35mm f4, the images look very similar to those taken with a Zeiss softar II: (VERY low contrast with veiling flare). At 35mm

f5.6, a Zeiss softar I.

At 17mm f4 is a Zeiss Softar I type softness. At 17mm f5.6 sharpness begins.

 

Curvilinear Distortion was unnoticeable in all images - and I am very sensitive to distortion.

 

Now about the softness wide open - it was quite dissappointing until I realized there is somewhat of a sharp image underneath - in other

words, its not a mushy softness so much as a "soft focus" type softness.

 

Summary: The professional build quality, the non-existant disortion, incredible resolution at 5.6/8.0 and above, and even soft focus effect

wide open at 35mm makes this a perfect travel, landscape, and portrait lens. There were optical compromises here, the trade off is

dreamy soft veiling flare wide open for incredibly low distortion and high contrast and resolution capability at f5.6/f8.0 to f11/f16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Those last two shots are pretty much full frame on DX format. (minimal crop)<br>

Also, I illustrated the 35mm end of the zoom range because I feel this to be the "weaker" end (in terms of the softness at large apertures).<br>

The shots at 17mm 24mm (not shown) , etc were very confidence building in terms of great resolution and contrast at 5.6 and higher. I feel this is a first rate, professional optic. Easily the equal or better of my former Nikon 20-35 f2.8.<br>

(Can anyone tell me what that darkish area running roughly vertical in the middle my crop shot's sky is? - a raindrop on the filter or dust on sensor?)<br>

Thanks</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You lost me at the mushy wide open examples. I wonder how they could pass this off as an ATX-Pro lens when it does not even come close to the 11-16/2.8.<br>

Whats the point of being sharpish at F8 and higher when most AF systems need 5.6 or lower to function properly?<br>

Get a 16-35 F4 Nikon or a used 17-35/f2.8 Nikon from Keh. Ken Grobl did the latter when he migrated from Canon to Nikon. His business would fail if his wide zoom was poor at 2.8-5.6.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niko, and I wonder how 35mm lens manufacturers continue

to make wide angle lenses such as the Nikon 16-35 VR that

have coke bottle distortion.

 

Sure, I would have paid and extra $150 for Tokina to add

nano coating (or whatever it would have taken to eliminate

the ghosting and flare at f4 and f5.6.

 

But I recognize a good optic. You will be hard pressed to

find even a leica mount rangefinder wide angle lens with

the Tokina 17-35's low distortion performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have one that I'm trying on a 5DII. So far, I find it works well for landscape and architecture. It's almost too soft in the corners when not stopped down. There is some CA, but not too much. I've only corrected one photo for that so far.<br>

Here are four shots taken with this lens: <a href="http://jimhennessyphoto.com/Recent/">http://jimhennessyphoto.com/Recent/</a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decentering Issue Update:

 

My initial tests had me concerned

about possible asymetry of sharpness

(due to decentering of elements).

 

Unfortunately I did find that the left side

of a DX image was noticeably softer

the the right side - this was noticeable

at the longer end of the zoom (from

about 28mm to 35mm, most prominent

at 35mm.

 

I decided to return the lens to Samy's

Camera. If the lens was demomstrating

decentered elements on DX, it would

be unacceptable on FX.

 

This decentering may also partially

explain the really soft images of the

cruise ship.

 

I will try to post images later.

 

Other than that fatal problem, the

optics were impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...