Tokina 17mm

<p>Recently took delivery on a used Tokina f/3.5 17mm AT-X lens (not the Pro model). The only thing I don't like

about it is the lens hood can't be removed. It works out to about 25mm on my D300 and D50. The shot with the D50

and 17mm below has been cropped slightly but I think this lens will stay on one body most of the time. It's comp

act and fairly light. 24mm was always my favorite focal length and this Tokina seems as sharp as my 24mm on a f

ilm body. The Tokinas are well built--too bad they hav

e quit making this model.<br>

<img src="http://swcornell.com/

webphoto/moss0172.jpg" alt="" /></p>���������������������

<p>The old Tokina 17mm f3.5 was a nice lens in the film days, but I tried the same one you have and wasn't so impressed. I prefer the more modern Tokina 12-24mm f4. And yes, the non-removable lens hood of the Tokina was a major bummer.</p>

<p>I have the 12-24, too and I think the prime is sharper. But I got it more for it's size than anything else. I've also read there is a lot of variation in performance of various examples of the 17mm.</p>

<p>The Tokina 11-16 at 16mm would be one to look for in this range, too! I adore mine.</p>

<p>Wayne</p>

<p>Thanks for the nice comments about Tokina 17mm F3.5.<br>

I have the earlier SL version and it is very sharp, beautiful color and well built; it has no built in hood.<br>

I bought the Tokina clamp on rubber hood for it and yes it is handy to be able to remove such a large hood.<br>

Why I say thanks for the nice comments, the reviewers constantly bash this little lens.<br>

Many shots I feel it is on par with my 20mm AFD Nikkor.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I might add the above was shot at 1/8 sec handheld at F5.6.</p>

<p>Robert:<br>

I sold my 20mm Nikkor to get a 24mm several years ago because the 20mm was bulky and heavy and I didn't think the images it produced were that outstanding. I think the 17mm Tokina does as well and it's more compact.<br>

It's easier to get away with shooting at the slow shutter speeds because camera movement doesn't show up as much using WA-- probably one reason I like them better than teles. One reason you don't see VR on as many WA lenses.</p>

<p>Robert:<br>

I sold my 20mm Nikkor to get a 24mm several years ago because the 20mm was bulky and heavy and I didn't think the images it produced were that outstanding. I think the 17mm Tokina does as well and it's more compact.<br>

It's easier to get away with shooting at the slow shutter speeds because camera movement doesn't show up as much using WA-- probably one reason I like them better than teles. One reason you don't see VR on as many WA lenses.</p>