Looking for Wide Angle?

[drisley]

Well, look no further than the Tokina 17mm F3.5 lens... WOW! :shock:
I just recieved mine, and I was impressed with everything.
The leather case is nicer than the ones my Canon L lenses come in, and the build is just as good as my L lenses.
I just took 3 tests shots wide open, and boy am I impressed. The only lens I had to compare it to was the 18-50 Rebel kit lens, and this thing blows it away optically (and in every other way)! All for $360us!
Anyway if anybody is interested, I will post some test shots tomorrow when the weather is nicer.
:) 8) :) 8) :) 8)

[drisley]

:D

[roanjohn]

..............it'll be interesting to see your reactions. I initially thought of buying this lens as I do a lot of wide angle............but in the end, I just can't give up the flexibility of a zoom...........so the 17-40 found its way in my bag.

Ro1

[drisley]

You know I have all primes.
But, if there was any focal length that I would use a zoom, it would be the wide end. The 17-40L would have been perfect.
However, since I don't shoot wide angle that often, I like the fact that I could save $500cdn by getting the Tokina and not give up image quality.
Also, I really like the size, and the fact that it has a 3 yr warranty.
Now I can put that $$ into something else, like the 300F4L, or maybe rent :wink:

[Nic]

What about the Canon 35mm f1.4 L USM??? It's a very nice lens!

[Andy_T]

can someone explain to me why my reply was deleted

If it did not contain any offensive comments, then it might be a technical problem.

On the other hand, maybe the moderators conspire against you :twisted:

Best regards,
Andy

[drisley]

Actually, Timmy, this is the 3rd time this morning I've read of someone complaining about their post being deleted. I believe it must be a technical problem.
Can you repost?

[gramps]

side to side the pic looks good but top to bottom .............. the bottom seems very "soft"...........

[drisley]

side to side the pic looks good but top to bottom .............. the bottom seems very "soft"...........
It's not soft..., it's just DOF blur... The feet are just out of focus.
The focus was on the eyes, and was shot almost wide open. The lens was almost touching the door! :shock:
I've taken other shots, and I can assure you this lens is very sharp.
In fact, some reviews rate it as being slightly sharper than the 17-40L, with less flare, and less CA.
I will post more today.

[cmM]

Congrats on your new toy drisley ;)

[drisley]

Congrats on your new toy drisley ;)
Thanks. I love that new lens smell! :D

[Olegis]

Congradulations, drisley ! I too had been eyeing this lens for a while, before I got the Sigma 15-30 (I'm lazy, so I like the convenience of the zooms).
How's the CA performance ? Petteri Sulonen pointed that out as one of a (few) disadvantages of the Tokina 17mm in his review ...

[drisley]

I am giving it a go today. I just got home with some pictures and will post.
Yes, apparently there is some mild corner CA, but only on digital. It doesnt show on film at all which is weird.
But even so, in Petteri's review, he said that the Tokina's CA is still slightly better than both the Canon 16-35L, and 17-40L. Not too shabby.
I really liked the Sigma 15-30, but again, it was more money than I was willing to spend on a WA lens. Olegis, you've produced some amazing shots with that lens :shock:
Anyway, I will post some images later today.

[Olegis]

Thanks drisley !
I'll be waiting ... :wink:

[drisley]

Ok, well, I "developed" the raw images, and I am very impressed.
There was only *slight* CA on one image where there was a very bright skylight with black framing. But, this was shot wide open, and was overexposed. The fringing/CA is SO MUCH better than the 18-50mm kit lens for the 300D.
Even at F4, the lens is very sharp from corner to corner. And flare? Forget about it!
There are about a dozen images posted HERE (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/10222004)

Distortion is very mild too with this lens. Have a look at image MG_2982 above.
In this sample below, even though those lights are VERY bright, there is no fringing/CA at all!

17.0mm, f/4.0, 0.040 s (1/25), iso800
http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/10222004/MG_2973.jpg

[Olegis]

Wow, man - this picture is marvelous !

http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/10222004/MG_2981

[Andy_T]

DRisley ...


very nice pictures ... looks like a very nice building, as well.
What is that, a library?

Best regards,
Andy

[drisley]

Wow, thankyou very much guys :D
Andy, that is a government building, very much like a Senate building in the US. It really is absolutely a beautiful old building.
My plan was originally to go to an aviation museum and get some shots of old planes... but after biking 1/2hr in the cold and rain, I was told the museum was closed for a fund raising event :shock:
I was not too happy, but in the end, I'm glad the way things turned out.
I got some exercise, and got to see some fantastic old architecture.

[RbnDave]

Finally someone else on this board has this fantastic lens. I've had my Tokina 17mm for a year and i still love it. I don't understand why this lens isn't more popular. It's built like a tank and it takes really sharp pictures. Have fun with your new toy.

[drisley]

Finally someone else on this board has this fantastic lens. I've had my Tokina 17mm for a year and i still love it. I don't understand why this lens isn't more popular. It's built like a tank and it takes really sharp pictures. Have fun with your new toy.
Thanks RbnDave.
I agree, this lens is built like a tank and is very sharp... and it's relatively cheap! If Canon built a 17mm L prime, this would be it (but would cost much more).
I truly did a LOT of research before buying this lens, and there really isn't much info available on this lens. If it wasn't for Petteri's great review, I probably wouldnt have bought the lens.
If I were to grade this lens, I would give it the following:

Build: A
Sharpness: B+
Flare: A+ <-tremendous, especially for a wide-angle lens
Focus Speed: B
C/A,Fringing: B+ <-very good for a wide-angle lens
Price: A

Verdict: Overall: A- ... Build and quality of a Canon L for much less. 3 Yr warranty!

[jpsimon]

where did ya get it?

[roanjohn]

thats pretty impressive. I am really impressed with the lack of distortion. The Canon 17-40 has some odd distortions, especially at 17.

Ro1

[drisley]

JPSimon, you can get the lens at both BH Photo and Adorama.
Adorama is actually cheaper though.

Roanjohn, yes, the disortions appears to be quite good. Perhaps that is an advantage of a wide angle prime vs a wide angle zoom.

[phili1]

Picture look great, good asharpness and color.

I need one for Real Estate and was thinking of the Tamron 17 to 35 for about $90 more.

Maybe the 17 will do it for me, I need it for taking pictures of rooms.

Thanks for the post Drisley.

[pcasciola]

I need one for Real Estate and was thinking of the Tamron 17 to 35 for about $90 more.

Maybe the 17 will do it for me, I need it for taking pictures of rooms.



Phili1, I'm not sure you'll be happy with 17mm on the 20D for taking pictures of rooms because of the crop factor. I have the same need and have struggled with the kit lens @18mm. I am holding out to see how good the Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens is (should be out very soon). If that lens turns out to be junk, I am considering going with either the Sigma 12-24mm, or Sigma 14mm instead.

Drisley, that lens looks awesome. I guess Canon is not the only company that can make good primes.

[nat869]

Wow Drisley, great pic of the government building! I have been considering the 17-40L but after seeing your posts, I am considering the Tokina. Thanks for sharing.

[drisley]

Phili, I think the Sigma 12-24mm might be perfect for what you are doing.
It's VERY wide, and apparently has VERY little distortion which makes it ideal for architecture.
However, if you dont have to go quite that wide (ie, the rooms are a good size), then you wont be disappointed with the Tokina.

[drisley]

Wow Drisley, great pic of the government building! I have been considering the 17-40L but after seeing your posts, I am considering the Tokina. Thanks for sharing.
Nat, thanks for your comment :)
I would say the only plus that the 17-40L has over the Tokina is the fact that it's a zoom. I would say image quality and build are very, very close between the two.

[pcasciola]

Phili, I think the Sigma 12-24mm might be perfect for what you are doing.
It's VERY wide, and apparently has VERY little distortion which makes it ideal for architecture.
However, if you dont have to go quite that wide (ie, the rooms are a good size), then you wont be disappointed with the Tokina.

Yes, Drisley is right. When Phili mentioned real estate, I was thinking of "small" homes in the 3000-5000 sq ft range, where 17mm is just not wide enough to do those rooms. The rooms I tried to do with the 18mm were in the 16x16 to 20x25 range, and it was just not wide enough with the 1.6x crop factor effectively turning it into a 28mm. The pics were ok, but I felt I needed to be wider.

At the place you shot, however, the 17mm was dead on perfect in my opinion.

[phili1]

Thanks Phil C & Drisley.

Whgen I shot film the 28 was ok, when I got my G3 with wide adapter it did a better job, made the rooms look super.

The Sigma 12 to 24 is what I keep comping back to and I have been waiting for Canon to get the 10 to 22 but I fear that it might be the same as the 17 to 85, it is getting bad reports. I was hoping to keep it in the $500 range but that is not possable.

Phil L

[jpsimon]

i just ordered that zenitar 16mm f2.8 ... yesterday

haha, for 160 shipped with the adaptor... i thought it might be a good thing to just mess around with... Ill take a bunch of pics with it and post them up when it gets here (2-4 weeks)

[jpsimon]

here are some pictures of it on a film slr... (full frame.. but you get the point.. the quality really isn't bad at all for 160 bux!!)


http://www.teatromagico.com/fotografia/galeria/zenitar/bigimages/image021.jpg

http://www.teatromagico.com/fotografia/galeria/zenitar/bigimages/image030.jpg

http://www.teatromagico.com/fotografia/galeria/zenitar/bigimages/image050.jpg