I really doubt anyone has it, but if you do, please post some sample shots. Thanks.

There are some shot samples (Nikon D200) and a review up now on Photozone. Obviously, there will be some differences between it and the copies for EF mount, but this at least gives a starting point.

Here's the link to the review:
http://www.photozone.d​e ...a_1650_28_nikon/ind​ex.htm

It seems by the review that the lens is a tad soft at 16mm @ f/2.8 on the edges, though it looks pretty decent by the time you get to f/4.

One thing to note, in looking at the samples, some of the shots look rather "muddy" all over. There is a comment in the review about a slight centering issue with the sample, so it might be playing into the odd results.

Enjoy!

We need to see the Canon-mount/USA-release of this lens. That's where the money is for me.

LightRules wrote in post #3353026
We need to see the Canon-mount/USA-release of this lens. That's where the money is for me.

I have a feeling you're going to make me regret getting the Tamron 17-50.

Looking at those Nikon sample photos from Photozone...the Tokina is wonderfully sharp in the center but it gets yucky on the outer parts.

jcw122 wrote in post #3353283
Looking at those Nikon sample photos from Photozone...the Tokina is wonderfully sharp in the center but it gets yucky on the outer parts.

it'll be a "cracker" in EF mount. i can almost guarantee it !

ed rader

I can see ya upgrading Ed lad ... you know you want to and you're willing to hammer and nail it to the front of that 5Drool to make it work for ya

Not looking that smurffy handling the CA on the wide end, at least with the Nikon mount.

Look at the barrel distortion at the 16mm and CA.
I hate CA!
I would not sacrifice optics for a better build and pay extra for it over the tammy.

Tee Why wrote in post #3356371
Look at the barrel distortion at the 16mm and CA.
I hate CA!
I would not sacrifice optics for a better build and pay extra for it over the tammy.

Too early, Tom. Too early to tell. Besides, some fine glass (e.g., 35L, 85f1.8, 100f2) have some pretty harsh CA and they are quite beloved nonetheless. But I still say the jury hasn't even convened.

CA is not an absolute deal breaker, but not when cheaper alternatives exist that are better optically with less distortion and less CA.

I think it's a good idea about waiting for the sharpness issue, but I think tokes have been consistent between nikon/canon mounts in terms of CA and distortion. I don't use normal zooms much so I wouldn't get the Toke b/c it's expensive anyway but I really think it's not worth it. But we can wait for the Canon mount version to see.

Tee Why wrote in post #3356462
CA is not an absolute deal breaker, but not when cheaper alternatives exist that are better optically with less distortion and less CA.

But that's the issue here: we don't know how it does "optically" quite yet. We know the Tokinas 12-24 and 100 Macro are excellent mechanically and optically, even with their CA numbers, yet they are solid lenses with quite the following.

I think it's a good idea about waiting for the sharpness issue, but I think tokes have been consistent between nikon/canon mounts in terms of CA and distortion. I don't use normal zooms much so I wouldn't get the Toke b/c it's expensive anyway but I really think it's not worth it. But we can wait for the Canon mount version to see

It is priced a little high, but they market their glass accordingly and for $650 (or thereabouts), generally you get what you pay for. So prima facie, I'm thinking it will be solid all-around. But we do need to wait for Canon-mount and see.

*****

LightRules wrote in post #3356485
It is priced a little high, but they market their glass accordingly and for $650 (or thereabouts), generally you get what you pay for. So prima facie, I'm thinking it will be solid all-around. But we do need to wait for Canon-mount and see.

Well.......no one should expect centering issues with a $650 lens. You could pay a $250 premium for IS and USM (i.e. 17-55 IS USM), and you'd whine and complain like a little girl if it had manufacturing faults. There is no excuse why any sample, regardless of mount, of a lens at this price point should exhibit serious mechanical/optical problems due to QC problems. I didn't get the impression from the article that photozone broke into Tokina and stole a pre-release test sample. I also do not believe anyone needs to wait for an EF sample or a US sample to comment on apparent manufacturing QC issues in tested Nikon samples. Furthermore, while CA may vary in amplitude between cameras/sensors, the general characteristic, for the most part, will not.

Focus accuracy or camera communication gripes should be the only real complaints held back for now.

the current sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro is getting the best results in the mags i the UK at the moment along with the tamron particularly for price and optics.

I got samples!!
It is already sold here in Japan.
I am impressed with the test shots by the way.. but after I tested 17-55 IS it is no comparison. canon is way better I think maybe because of the IS.

I will post as soon as I have the picture at home.