MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
DiskFreeVault safely moves Mac apps and data to external storage.
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Tokina 17mm 3.5 RMC first impressions (SAMPLES ADDED)
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:50 pm
Post subject: Tokina 17mm 3.5 RMC first impressions (SAMPLES ADDED)
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:50 pm
Post subject: Tokina 17mm 3.5 RMC first impressions (SAMPLES ADDED)
Reply
The 17mm Tokina arrived today.

I took a couple of shots this afternoon and on the plus side CA seems remarkably well controlled as is barrel distortion.

Sharpness seems okay, but I'd left the filter on and got slight flare in strong sun so need to reshoot. Corners look a little soft even at 5.6. I'll post samples soon.

Last edited by Richard_D on Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:26 pm; edited 1 time in total


Post
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:01 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:01 pm
Post subject:
Reply
This is great news you have it, I am so curious.


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:20 pm
Post subject: Samples!
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:20 pm
Post subject: Samples!
Reply
Sample shots:

f11:



f11 corner unsharpened 100% crop:



f11 centre
unsharpened 100% crop:



f8:


f8 corner unsharpened 100%:



f8 centre unsharpened 100%:



f5.6:



f5.6 corner unsharpened 100%:



f5.6 centre unsharpened 100%:



f3.5:



f3.5 corner:



f3.5 centre:



Distortion test :



Close up performance:






For those of you who haven't fallen asleep what do you think of this super-wide?

For the record build quality is very good, with smooth focusing and clear aperture stops.

Last edited by Richard_D on Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
average low prices super-wide angle like vivitar lenses.


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:42 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:42 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I'm happy enough with it for the Ł40 odd pounds I paid for it.

Chromatic Abberation control is very good to my eyes, and barrel distortion is goood for this width but...

F3.5 is quite soft, and whilst it's basically sharp enough at f5.6 it's not stunning, f8 is only slightly better - it's pretty good but not really great.

It's far from a bad performer, pretty good in many ways, but it doesn't really sing.


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Yes.In more details , same than Vivitars.


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:11 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:11 pm
Post subject:
Reply
any idea what's wrong with some of the links?


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:24 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:24 pm
Post subject:
Reply
at broken links , at the end of broken links closing img tag had a line brake like this.

link
[/img]

instead of link[/img]


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:34 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:34 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Attila wrote:
at broken links , at the end of broken links closing img tag had a line brake like this.

link
[/img]

instead of link[/img]


Thanks!

I think the lens is a keeper for the moment on the grounds that when I need to go wider than my far better Nikkor 20mm there aren't many great alternatives (nikkor 18mm costs a fotune and doesn't really impress either). 3'll have to try it on on one of my film cameras it might do better there. Still it's not bad mid aperture for occasional use.


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Yes. Another possible alternative is Tamron SP 17mm f3.5


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:03 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:03 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Thanks Richard
You made a very professional reviews
look like a nice lens


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:14 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:14 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Thanks Richard. Looks very similar to the one I have. Soft wide open and does not really sharpen that well. Frankly my Sigma AF 15-30 is a lot sharper and has no more distortion.


patrickh


Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:46 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:46 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Richard I support your thoughts on the value of this lens. You have a very usable piece for under $100. The fact is and it's been talked about in other threads. Super wide angle lenses for reflex cameras are always going to have compromises. Even lenses like the Zuiko 18mm 3.5 and Contax 15mm 3.5 at over 10X the price you paid are not perfect.


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:48 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:48 am
Post subject:
Reply
Photozone.de Review of this lens :

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Pentax%20Lens%20Tests/48-pentax/142-tokina-rmc-17mm-f35-review--lab-test-report


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:00 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:00 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Flor27 wrote:
Photozone.de Review of this lens :

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Pentax%20Lens%20Tests/48-pentax/142-tokina-rmc-17mm-f35-review--lab-test-report


Thanks for that - it's interesting to see how the lab tests reflect your own experiences. They seem to suggest it's sharper than I found, but with more of a CA problem.


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:08 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:08 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Richard_D wrote:
Thanks for that - it's interesting to see how the lab tests reflect your own experiences. They seem to suggest it's sharper than I found, but with more of a CA problem.

Maybe a copy problem ? Confused


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:41 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Flor27 wrote:
Richard_D wrote:
Thanks for that - it's interesting to see how the lab tests reflect your own experiences. They seem to suggest it's sharper than I found, but with more of a CA problem.

Maybe a copy problem ? Confused


Could be sample variation, or could be the difference between a Pentax sensor and my D200. I really don't think CA is a great problem with this lens - even at 5.6 I've got strong contrasts near the edge and can only detect a hint of CA. In terms of sharpness at f8 it's very useable but I couldn't describe it as excellent - something Patrick found with his.

The more I use it the happier I am - it's very useable at f8, and not bad at 5.6 - normally this wouldn't be great, but with such a short focal length it's not a problem.


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:45 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:45 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Anyway, I think this lens did pretty well for a super-wide, really! I even think it is a little better than my Cosina 3.8/20 and definitely better than my Hanimex 3.5/23 (although they are not as wide!).

Of course you will have some distortion! Of course, you will see some CA and perhaps not the perfect sharpness, but hey, we are not talking about a $800 lens!! It is an amazing piece of glass you got for a very good price! That's what's called "value"!
Congratulations!


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I will post Tamron SP 17/3.5 and Soligor 17/3.5 pictures samples as soon as I can test this latest.


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:04 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:04 pm
Post subject:
Reply
patrickh wrote:
Thanks Richard. Looks very similar to the one I have. Soft wide open and does not really sharpen that well. Frankly my Sigma AF 15-30 is a lot sharper and has no more distortion.






and now the Nikon 18-55 kit lens@18mm


image quality at f/5.6 and up vastly better. Build quality of a disposable camera and manual focus a joke, but ....


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:08 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:08 pm
Post subject:
Reply
You just can't compare a 17mm DX with a 17mm FullFrame Wink


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:13 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:13 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Flor27 wrote:
You just can't compare a 17mm DX with a 17mm FullFrame Wink

You can if the FF lenses were tested on crop cameras, which is what photozone.de does.


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:16 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:16 pm
Post subject:
Reply
But if you insist, here is a FF lens for comparison. Although, note, tested on a crop camera once again (so the 'border' and 'extreme' (ie, corner) are directly comparable.

Nikkor 17-35/2.8 @17


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:17 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:17 pm
Post subject:
Reply
ChrisLilley wrote:
Flor27 wrote:
You just can't compare a 17mm DX with a 17mm FullFrame Wink

You can if the FF lenses were tested on crop cameras, which is what photozone.de does.

Of course it was, but I guess FF wide angle lenses has more drawback than EF ones for the same focale lengh.


Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Chris - I'm beginning to wonder about these photozone tests. I can't comment on the 18-55 figures because I've only briefly used one, but I owned the 20 2.8 AFD (before selling it to buy the (IMO) superior 20 2.8 AIS) and I can't believe it had poorer MTF than the Tokina.
Post new topic Reply to topic
Goto pagePrevious 1 2 Next
Page 1 of 2