Tokina 17mm f/3.5 for FD

[graybrick]

Has anyone used and/or compared this lens to the quality of the Canon 17mm

f/4? I'm looking for a reasonably sharp lens, and I really don't mind the

barrel distortion effect... would like to jump up to the 15mm Canon but the

$500 price tag is a bit out of budget for me right now, and they're a pretty

scarce commodity to boot. Anyway, any advice/experience with the Tokina lens

would be a big help, thanks.

[awahlster]

The 17 tokina is the next best option to the Canon 17mm but the 15mm is a totally different animal you know the Canon 15mm is a fisheye lens right?

[graybrick]

Yeah, it's fisheye in the corners, and much more expensive... it'll be a nice toy soon, when I can afford to pick one up. I'm still trying to work the EF 70-200 f/2.8 into the budget for my 20D, though, so I'm going to be sitting on this one for a while unless I come across a fleabay miracle...

[stephen hazelton]

I've got a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 in Pentax K mount. I've used it a lot, and like the lens.

 

One person commented a while back and said he had bought one and "it was not critically sharp". I'll agree with that. I don't know about the Canon lens, how they compare. But the Tokina was a lot of bang-for-the-buck, and has worked fine for me. Keep in mind, i mainly do 4x6 prints as the end result. Most of my shots with it have also been at f/11 or so, I seldom shoot it wide open.

 

There is an old and a new version of the Tokina 17mm. The newer version is an "ATX" lens. This may have been the transition from manual to autofocus, but I think it also included new optics. I assume the new one is sharper, but I think the price about doubled when it came out. Make sure you don't read reviews on the new lens and buy the older version based on that. I suspect the FD mounts would all be the older version. I bought mine maybe 8 years ago. At that time, the non-ATX was about $175 new, the ATX was about $350.

 

Another lens I have which was a bang-for-the-buck wide angle is a Zenitar 16mm fisheye.

[hilbert5]

I own the Tokina 17mm (actually the Vivitar clone) and I can recommend it though I cannot answer your question as to a comparison with the Canon 17mm.

 

BUT: If you go for the Tokina, get it with a shade (and the right one, which is the "eared" shape) . This lens is quite sensitive to flare and reflections otherwise.

[stephen hazelton]

Now, that tells you something right there. Mine didn't come with a shade. So he's got one somehow different from mine. Either the newer ATX or maybe an older version.

[awahlster]

Grayson the 15mm Canon is a Fish not just in the corners. for a sample of the type of image it takes check out Lens Work on Christians site

 

http://www.canonfd.com/lenswork/lenswork042.htm

 

http://www.canonfd.com/lenswork/lenswork043.htm

 

NO STRAIGHT LINES DUDE. You best need one before you buy one. This is the type of lens that trying to figure out what to do with it after you buy it can be expensive.

 

But then I own a 85mm f2.8 nFD Soft Focus.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi, dear Grayson. I own a Tokina SL 17 mm f/ 3,5 in Nikon AIS mount and found it very very excellent ultra wide angle. This is one of my most used lens. Have a little distorsion, very good sharpness, very good mechanical construction.

Ciao.

[hilbert5]

Actually I have no idea about differrent versions of this, but my comment with the shade referred to this one here which exists labeled as Vivitar and as Tokina:

 

http://masl.to/?I12836A4E

[graybrick]

Thanks all for the replies. I am familiar with the difference in a rectilinear and a fisheye. Thanks for the link, though, I enjoyed the example shots- I've been looking for some good examples but they're not too easy to find without sifting through hundreds of web pages. I'm an amateur, so truth is I don't even need a camera, but I find it rewarding so I'm willing to sink some cheese into new equipment now and then. Anyway, I think I've got the info I need from this, thanks again guys.

[User_502260]

I have the Vivitar version in Konica mount. It has a cut-out shaped front. I also have the Tokina version in Minolta manual focus mount with a plain round front. I would say that both are decent performers. Most wide angle lenses are decent enougn in the center. The better ones are also good at the edges. I would not be surprised to find out that the Canon and Minolta 17mm f/4 lenses are sharper at the edges but the Tokina/Vivitar is capable of decent results.

[John Crowe]

I used a Canon FD 17mm f4 for over 15 years and loved it! Sharp, contrasty and excellent colour rendition. It also controlled flare well too.

 

 

With superwide lenses some people mistake exagerated perspective in the corners for distortion. So I am not sure if the Tokina users above are referring to true distortion or not. The Canon 17mm has virtually no distortion, meaning all lines through any part of the image are straight. I currently use a Nikon 14mm f2.8 and it does have noticeable barrel distortion which creates a "moustache" effect with straight lines. No where near the fisheye effect, so I can live with it.

 

 

If you can justify a little more for the Canon, I think it would be worth it.