Why not Tokina?

[weasel]

I read a good bit on fourms about Tamron and Sigma and very little about Tokina. I know a professional photographer through my self help group and he thinks Tokina makes a very good lens. I just wonder why if it's a good lens more don't seem to be using them? Is it because they cost a bit more than Tamron or Sigma?:confused:

[Jwreich]

I just ordered my first Tokina lens, the 12-24. I don't think there is anything wrong with some of their products, however, a few I felt were just too plastic. They get good reviews, I just believe they fall into the too good to be true and therefore people stay away. My new Tokina will be here Monday and I'm excited to create a few memories...

--

[tim]

I have the Tokina 12-24, it seems like a good lens so far.

[SHOWSP]

A friend has the Tokina 12-24 and his shots with it look great. If the Sigma 10-22 is not great when it finaly is available, then it's the Tokina 12-24 for me.

[condyk]

The Tokina Pro range is well respected by many. Look at lenses across all brands as there are good and bad in them all. Are you after a specific model or type of lens? If so, post agin with your needs and people will make recommendations.

[dynesaur]

I have a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 PRO. It's too soft to be useful at 200mm f2.8 but more or less okay at the wider end of its focal length. If I had the money at that time, I would have bought Canon's 70-200mm f2.8. I might be selling my Tokina soon.

[drisley]

I had the Tokina 17mm Pro ATX lens, and it was built at LEAST as well as my L lenses.

[weasel]

I had the Tokina 17mm Pro ATX lens, and it was built at LEAST as well as my L lenses.

I assume the optic quality was good also? The 17mm is the lens I'm considering because no one else makes a 16 or 17mm prime lens. I'm guessing that you replaced it with the 16-35L? I would kill for the 16-35L but there is just no way I can afford it (retired). Does the focusing ring, on the 17mm, turn in reverse direction of Canon's lenses as I have heard? Do you feel that the effective maxium aperture is really smaller than the f/3.5 Tokina claims? I had heard that too.

[drisley]

The optics were very good. Not as good as the 16-35L, but really there is nothing out there in the same class as the Tokina 17mm, as you have mentioned.
I can't remember if the focus ring is reversed or not. I almost never use manual focus on my Canon lenses. I did however use it on the Tokina because manual focus works extremely well for wide angle lenses at long distances. I can say it had the smoothest manual focus ring I've ever used.
I also didn't notice that the max aperture was anything but F3.5.
Then again, even Canon L lenses max aperture specs don't exactly match their claims.

[WestFalcon]

I have the 12-24 and it seems to be very sharp....It is as sharp or sharper at the same focal lengths as the 10-22 Canon when I tested them in a store.