Tokina 20-35?

[heather_maxwell]

Hi. I have a basic setup for my minolta and am looking to expand. I am living in Africa, working as a tour guide, and a great deal of the photos I take are in game parks/wildlife/landscape. At present I'm looking for something that will allow me to experiment with new equipment, etc., and perhaps sell a few travel/wildlife pieces to magazines. I'm still very much in the amateur department and would like your opinion on a few pieces of equipment. I've heard that the Tokina 20-35mm/3.5-4.5 is a good lens, as is the 2.8. What do you think of the Tokina lens...I'm afraid I can't swallow the $1700+ for a similar Minolta lens (unless I could find a used one). Would the Tokina lens depreciate in value so as to not make it worth the investment. What I'm really looking for is a lens that I can take landscape photographs with that have incredible depth of field (the kind you can almost feel the distance between the foreground and the background when you look at the photograph). I've heard some pretty critical remarks about third party lenses...are they that bad? I'm just home for a quick visit and then I'm going back to Africa for another year, so I'm afraid that once I buy this lens I've got to live with it so I want to make the right choice (camera equipment is much less expensive here!). Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[john_n._wall]

Both the Tokina lenses you mention have good reputations for both optical quality and build quality.

 

<p>

 

I do not think you will go wrong with either. Just depends on whether you have the $400 difference in price.

 

<p>

 

Remember that these lenses have large front elements so that you need big filters for them -- 77 mm I think.

[bobatkins]

If you want depth of field, you won't be shooting at f2.8 so it

probably makes little sense to buy a fast lens. Stopped down to

f11 or f16, most lenses give very good performance. If you want

a little higher quality (perhaps a little less flare etc,) think

about a fixed 24mm lens, or a 20mm if you want a really wide

perspective. For a beginner, a 24 is probably a much easier lens

to use well, and probably useful more of the time. Usually

cheaper too.

[steve_thompson1]

I agree with Bob, a 20mm lens is tough to handle well. Another option you may consider is Sigma 24-70 f3.5-4.5. I bought a new one in Feburary '97 and like it very much. Cost was about $160 at B&H. For wide angle type work speed is not to important, I always use a tripod. At around $160 you can't get hurt to bad

[howard_creech]

Aftermarket lenses are often as good or better than camera makers lenses, and considerably cheaper. My preference in this range (after using it for three years) is the Sigma 18-35...I have seen nothing but good reviews of this lens, and my personal experience with it has provided nothing but excelent chromes. The lens does have an 86 mm filter size, but using filters with lenses this wide is just asking for trouble anyway. The lens is priced at less than $450.00 mailorder NY. The lens is IF (non rotating front element), is APO, and has one rare glass element...good contrast/resolution/color rendition..if you include any sky in the slide you will easily shoot at f8 or smaller all the time..on the African plains, probably at f16 or smaller..hope this helps in your selection

[mark_van_bergh]

Heather, it's always nice to see a fellow Minolta user on the forum (there seem to be so few of us). Based on my prior trips to Africa I found that I didn't use the wide angle range nearly as much as the telephoto range, even on landscapes where I found I preferred to isolate certain details. That's not to say that I didn't use the wide angle range. I too have heard good things about the Tokina lenses but have no particular experience (I do have the Minolta lens you mentioned and its is a spectacular performer). A couple of other thoughts you might want to consider (you don't mention what other lenses you have) is Minolta's 24-85/3.5-4.5 lens which is excellent for the range. Minolta has also introduced a 20-35/3.5-4.5 lens but I have not heard anything about it other than it is not as good as the 17-35 (which is to be expected given the price differential).

[david_w._griffin]

My Sigma 18-35 Aspherical has an 82mm filter diameter, not 86. Maybe it's a slightly different model, I don't know. It seems to have a bad reputation on the net, but both my 18-35 (for Minolta) and a friend's for Canon have given me and my friend good service and good sharpness throughout the range.

[brian_hinther]

Heather, I use a Tokina 20-35 on my Nikon and am really pleased with it. The test reports said it would start delivering its best quality between f/4 and f/5.6 and my experience bears this out. The lens has had a bit of a "gravel-ly" feel in the zoom ring since day 1, but that hasn't seemed to make any difference. It also has an extremely "adequate" amount of distortion at 20mm, but for contrast and sharpness on a budget, I think it's an extremely good buy.

[jim_campbell]

I own the Tokina 20-35 f2.8 Pro zoom. I couldn't justify spending the big bucks for the Nikon version, so I opted for this brand. I am extrememly pleased with the sharpness and contrast of this lens. I used it last summer in Malawi, Africa for people pictures. You won't go wrong with this lens!

[smc1]

<p>Old thread, but..... I have a Tokina 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 on my old EOS 10D - picked up the lens for a bargain at auction and thought it must have been a cheapo until i started looking at the photos, lol. Bit of luck there. Its a bit of a beaut! </p>