Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

testing my lenses - part 89 - RMC Tokina 17mm/3.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:41 pm    Post subject: testing my lenses - part 89 - RMC Tokina 17mm/3.5 Reply with quote











PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for sharing.
At which apertures are these shots?
Is your front element 100% clean?
My feeling says that my copy is (was) visibly sharper.


Last edited by ForenSeil on Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:47 am; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

if i remember correctly i shot most of them wide open
front glass is clean, looking through the lens against the light there is only some dust particles
you use nex, i use oly e-520 that probably has thicker AA filter than your camera, so that might be the reason for better sharpness of your copy of the lens. when i get Oly E-M5 i'll re-test all my lenses and post results


PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ahh... ok... I never used mine wide open. That might be the main reason.
I know this lens is very sensitive to a dirty front element. I had a problem very slight condensation of a few very tiny oily drops in the inside which caused a massive sharpness falloff, especially in center after a while. I think that was caused by relubing with unsuitable oil by the seller (mine has also "wet" aperture blades). Mine is currently on repair.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the lens is known to be weak w o, and better at f8 (which is the normal use of a 17mm imho)


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phenix jc wrote:
the lens is known to be weak w o, and better at f8 (which is the normal use of a 17mm imho)


As user of the Canon 14L II, I sincerely agree Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phenix jc wrote:
the lens is known to be weak w o, and better at f8 (which is the normal use of a 17mm imho)


..those examples from WolverineX here don't look so weak for me


PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tedat wrote:
Phenix jc wrote:
the lens is known to be weak w o, and better at f8 (which is the normal use of a 17mm imho)


..those examples from WolverineX here don't look so weak for me

(...) weak w o = in comparison with others 17/18mm.
Or even 20/21mm.
Don't miss my purpose : it's a VG lens once stopped down. I sold mine for a Zuiko 21mm 3.5 during the film era, and I bought another one for pennies a couple of years ago Wink


PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your images look quite good reduced to 1024px. Do they look as good at the original resolution?

I keep trying to convince myself that I want to sell my copy of this lens. After all, I like my two Nikkor 20s better...I think. But, then I take it out and use it, and talk myself out of selling it.

It is pretty weak wide open. But, stopped down, it works very well. The OP used it with an Oly E-M5. That's a 2x crop factor, isn't it? Anyway, I was on a job a couple days ago--a burned mansion in Southern California. I snapped this shot of the house front with my Tokina 17/3.5 RMC on a Nikon D700 (104 degree FOV). It really is sharper on edges and corners than I thought it would be--as long as it's stopped down a bit.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arninetyes wrote:
It is pretty weak wide open. But, stopped down, it works very well. The OP used it with an Oly E-M5. That's a 2x crop factor, isn't it?


correction, i used it with oly e-520. E-m5 isn't in the stores in my country yet. have to wait until mid-April to buy it. when i do , i'll redo my whole "testing my lenses" series


PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Tedat"]
Phenix jc wrote:

..those examples from WolverineX here don't look so weak for me

For me the first two are still looking soft for this lens.

Here's bye the way an example what happens when the front lens get's slightly dirty (ugly examples):


Some very tiny drops of oily condensation from lubricant on the backsite of the front element.


@f/5.6

100% 16MP Crop

Compare the sharpness of the bird in the middle with the other two Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

well... that looks weak to me! Wink


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

new samples using E-M5









PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a lens that deserves a bigger sensor imho, you really miss out on the wonderful perspectives it gives with a 2x crop. This is one of my favourite lenses on NEX and 35mm film, I always feel a bit disappointed with losing some of the wide perspective when I use it on the NEX, at f8 on film it is sharp right to the corners.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's a lens that deserves a bigger sensor imho, you really miss out on the wonderful perspectives it gives with a 2x crop. This is one of my favourite lenses on NEX and 35mm film, I always feel a bit disappointed with losing some of the wide perspective when I use it on the NEX, at f8 on film it is sharp right to the corners.


I agree, I'm always a bit disappointed when I use wides on my apsc a55.

But, not considering the crop, samples look really good to me.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i'm thinking of selling it, so i can finance new buys at next months Zagreb Photo Fair.