Would you buy this lens if Pentax ...

[renatoa]

<p>I know I'll do... I prased this lens many times here as a vaporware, and now it is real... announced this summer for nikanon, by Tokina.<br>

<a href="http://www.dcviews.com/press/tokina-16.5.htm">http://www.dcviews.com/press/tokina-16.5.htm</a><br>

I'll pay for it the price of the two kit lenses 18-55 + 50-200 combined.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Dunno, Renato. The range is very attractive but it is big & slow. The truth is, I've hardly used my Sigma 24-60mm at all in the past 6 months 'cause I have such wonderful primes and haven't traveled much. This <em>might </em> be a way of simplifing my kit (especially at the very short end) but it would only be worthwhile if I were ready to give up the Sigma 10-20mm and the DA 21mm along with the mid-range Sigma--and I have serious doubts about that.</p>

[nathan_stiles]

<p>I'm not a fan of super wide angle to telephoto. The lens is made w/ a sweet spot in both the f-stop and focal length. You are crossing too much to get the quality I want at all focal lengths. That's why I'll never own a 28-200mm zoom either (in addition to its grotesque weight for a 28-125mm range lens I could be using).</p>

<p>If I'm shooting 16mm, I probably only need it to go up to 35-50mm max.</p>

[noah_maier]

<p>Short answer, no. I like the idea, but It is too slow for me. However, there is definitly a market for it.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>No matter that I have excellent faster, or some lighter, shorter, wider, or whatever lenses. A super zoom can handle a situation no other can. That situation is when you need both wide angle and more tele, but cannot practically change lenses. And some have very satisfactory image quality. I have either been using my old Pentax 28-200mm with no really wide angle on a DSLR, or returning to film for dealing with that situation. Mostly the latter. So I have considered getting a superzoom for digital- maybe this one will be it. Tokina build quality has generally been above average.<br />This lens is not slow for its range- FF equivelent of 24-205mm!! It will be the superzoom with the widest angle available. Most superzooms have pronounced vignetting at the wide setting- but I noticeed this one is designed with a 77mm filter size, evidently to deal with this issue, which without a larger design would likely be severe at 16mm.</p>

<p>Tests will reveal how this lens compares against other superzooms. Superzoom buyers will be faced with choosing between having a longer tele or a wider angle, if this one tests well..</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>For a super-zoom, its range is attractive but I have a 17-70/4 now and I that's probably enough for me. I've been making a point for some time to avoid "standard" glass with f/5.6 slow ends. This lens has been very long in coming, it will be interesting to see how it turns out. Also, the rings apparently spin the "wrong" way. Is this true on all Tokina glass?</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>It's really not that slow. 5.6 is reasonable and 3.5 is also reasonable.</p>

<p>It's be much more inclined to buy this over a 18-250mm which is slower, and (probably) more compromised.<br>

<br /> The 25mm wide end is appealing, as is the shorter but more functional zoom range.</p>

<p>This would actually be a fairly ideal travel lens for me, and sort of what I'd been asking for, a faster but lower zoom ratio super zoom with slightly better IQ across the range. Now make it sealed so I can use it for technical climbs or multiday trips where photography isn't the priority, and I'll buy one!</p>

[starvy]

<p>when you have experienced fast primes, a slow zoom, even in this proportion does not appeal. 3.5 is slow in my book.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>I think this lens is smaller than the Tamtax 18-250mm, which could be a plus for some. Interesting that it has 9 aperture blades.</p>

<p>If this Tokina were sharp wide open (especially in the corners), it could be a contender.</p>

<p>As for the direction in which the rings turn, old Tokinas always turned in the same direction as the lenses of the original lens mount (at least the AT-X line did). One of the reasons I liked (and still do) old Tokina zooms. The other was the fact that they were sharp wide open.</p>

<p>But I think this discussion is a moot point as Tokina doesn't seem to make lenses in P/KA mount anymore.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Speaking of new lenses, Tamron just announced a brand new 60/2.0 macro. It looks great on paper... except for the part about it only being available for Nikon, Canon, and Sony. :-\</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Interesting that it weighs as much as DA* 16-50 (33% more than 18-250) and takes 77mm filters so it's not that small...but it's shorter (at least at 16.5 mm)...relatively stubby, ~1cm shorter than the 18-250, 2cm shorter than a DA* 16-50.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Ahh, Steve, I've experienced fast primes. I don't quite get them (ask Mis as I'm sure he doesn't want to hear my mantra again).</p>

<p>Anyway, this lens isn't designed to compete with fast primes, it's designed to be a lesser of two evils. A more reasonable zoom with a faster aperture. 3.5 is plenty fast at 24mm and 5.6 aint all that bad at 200mm.</p>

<p>Again though, if I'm shooting with a do it all lens (and a 24-200mm is a do it all for my needs), I want it to be sealed. This is the only way I'd buy a lens like this, otherwise, I'd rather take a 2 or 3 lens kit with me.</p>

<p>I took this kit with me to Death Valley and it was perfect. 10-20, 21mm, 43mm, and 70-300. I also had a 24-50 mounted to my film camera. But the 4 lens digital kit was plenty for all my needs and it all fit in a Lowepro Primus AW, along with my hiking gear, water bladder, and tripod.</p>

[renatoa]

<p>> I want it to be sealed. This is the only way I'd buy a lens like this, ...<br />Ah, forget to specify... and don't cripple by releasing it SDM only !<br>

> I took this kit with me ...<br>

Changing lenses all day... this is the "pleasure" I want to shortcut...</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Ahh, Steve, I've experienced fast primes. I don't quite get them (ask Mis as I'm sure he doesn't want to hear my mantra again).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ha ha ha, yeah, ask Mis! LOL! :-D</p>

[pj_vesterback]

<p>Nope. Not me I have no interest spending money on superzooms. The one I do have hasn't been mounted to the camera in well over a year.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>> I took this kit with me ...<br /> Changing lenses all day... this is the "pleasure" I want to shortcut...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually no.</p>

<p>I never shot the 10-20mm, not a single shot. Had I done any photography in vegas, or went to the Hoover Dam, I probably would have, but not in DV. So I alternated between mostly 2 lenses (21/43, with only a few shots on the 70-300mm) with the 24-50 being essentially fixed on the film SLR. Had I had a similar digital 24-50 type zoom I might have gone with that and the 70-300 and called it a kit!</p>

<p>I for one don't need a zoom increment of mm, I am fine with 2-3 lenses total covering 10-300mm.</p>

<p>Of course, I also believe there is no shortcut to quality. A super zoom in my opinion defeats the purpose of an SLR. The only time I'd use one would be because changing lenses is impossible (such as fast paced movement on my part, or extremely poor weather). If photography was that much of a nuisance I probably wouldn't be taking an SLR anyway.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Justin, by "digital" 24-50, do you mean digital-friendly autofocus/focal-length-reporting version such as F24-50/4, or do you mean something more APS-C-friendly like a DA16-45/4 or FA20-35/4?</p>

<p>I did end up with both an A24-50 and F24-50 (wasn't my original intent but the F became available just 2 days after I found the A version in a bundle--I had been wanting to try these for a while)...and the jury is still out. I have a suspicion that these aren't terribly sharp wide open at the longer half of the zoom...does this sound consistent with your observations? Does your normal usage of this lens avoid this?</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>I still haven't really used this lens enough...correction, I haven't really started printing images from this lens and up till this last trip I haven't done any critical shooting with it, but my shots have always seemed OK. I largely got this lens as general purpose 1 lens kit for hiking and climbing. It's a bit heavy, but the range is perfect and it's moderately fast or slow depending on your perspective. I can pair it with the 21mm or better when the 15mm comes out the 15mm and have a really compact and manageable 2 lens 24-75 digital kit. And on film I can pair it with the 90mm Lanthar and have a very decent 24-90 range which really covers most of my landscape needs.</p>

<p>For what it is, a nice wide normal zoom on film, and a nice normal zoom on digital it seems decent. I would think under normal use (small prints, web images) it would be adequate as I haven't seen anything glaring on digital. I know it's not a dog, but I haven't yet figured out if it's on par with the 28-70 f/4 which we both know other than it's annoyances like the rotating front element and OK build, it's a great optical performer. Keep in mind this is my first film use with it. I haven't shot much film and none at all since getting this lens till a few weeks ago</p>

<p>I will let you know how the Death Valley film photos turn out (and of course post them) at some point. I haven't processed them yet, the rolls are in the freezer as I debate local pro lab or send out.</p>

<p>I'm sure you are aware, I seem to avoid many of the flaws of many lenses because I tend to shoot at the middle apertures on a tripod, so vignetting, edge softness, and other issues tend to only be an issue on the worst lenses. Plus, any tripod mounted lens seems a lot sharper than when it's being hand held. On the flip side, when I shoot wide open, I usually only care about center sharpness so again, only the worst lenses really perform poorly.</p>

<p>In terms of digital 24-50 I was thinking something like the 16-45 f/4, which more and more I think I will pick up when the 28-70 bites the dust. That lens seems excellent as a do it all lens, and the range of it would go nicely with a 70-300 (or better the Pentax 55-300) as a nice two lens travel kit. I could always toss in the 10-20 as a third lens if I thought I'd need a wider perspective.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Not long ago, I shot photos at a graduation, using film, and the superzoom was the way to go. I could and did use flash, I got some good wide angle full-stage group shots, zoomed to get close-ups of speakers, wider again for group shots, and closer for individuals being handed their diplomas. I deliberately took an isle seat with a good angle, and did not have to disturb people by moving around. Outside afterwards, more group shots, etc. It was the perfect tool. My prints came out very well, and those involved were delighted to get copies. </p>

<p>Recently, my 40+year old niece saw me shoot a few photos with my K100DS at a family event, and asked me: "Uncle Mike, how many zooms do you have?" Being truthful, I answered: "Why, a cabinet full, actually!" She laughed and said: "No, I'm talking about your camera!" </p>

<p>I realized she had no clue what an SLR type camera is. She has a P/S model, as do her friends, siblings and her mother. "How many zooms" meant the zoom range of my camera. So I said: "I have as many zooms as I wish, because you see, this lens comes off, and I can put another lens on if this one does not have enough range." I showed her by briefly dis-mouting and re-mounting the lens. I had brought the small kit lens, because that was all I needed for this occasion.</p>

[jonathan_rush]

<p>Yes, this sounds like the perfect party lens.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I'll give them some more time too but it is difficult for me to justify the 24-50/4's vs. the excellent FA24-90 which is probably superior in just about every way except that it is ever-so-slightly larger (though slightly lighter) and probably a little less durable (and more expensive too, but I already own it).</p>