Tokina 35/2.8 macro

There was a delay in releasing this lens but I see it is in stock at B&H. I have not heard much about this lens so far. Any reviews, thoughts?

http://photo.net …-lens/optical-discussion/

Found this review of the Pentax version.

It has actually been available for quite some time it was just priced at the exorbitant sum of $475 initially. I was considering it earlier this year, but decided to go with an F1.4 lens at that length. Now that it is a more palatable $350 I can see it being considered more.

http://lenstip.com …35_mm_f_2.8__Su​mmary.html

A review.

http://www.photozone.d​e/pentax/393-pentax_35_28

Well, this just turned me away from this lens. IQ is only fair. Busy bokeh.

I just don't see much use for such a short macro lens. But that's just me. For most macro shooting I simply prefer something around 90 or 100mm on a crop camera, or 150 to 180mm on full frame.

It's roughly equivalent to a 55mm macro lens which were commonly available with film cameras (i.e., full frame). I didn't use those very much, either, back in the good/bad old days of film. But a lot of other people bought and used them to double as a standard lens, if they didn't want to carry both a macro and a standard.

It really depends upon what you are shooting and how much magnification you need. If working with stamps and coins or watches or something, the shorter focal length might be quite useful, so long as working so close to your subject doesn't throw a shadow on it.

I do use 45mm TS-E on crop cameras when shooting table top stuff... i.e., small products. This usually isn't very near 1:1 though. More likely 2:1, 3:1 or even 4:1. It's helpful in those controlled lighting situations to be able to keep one's eye on the viewfinder while reaching around and repositioning things. On a FF camera, a 70 to 90mm would be better... at least for me.

You're correct, a 35mm crop body only macro lens does not make a lot of sense. I'm looking for a 35 that will do general work and getting a bit closer sometimes might not hurt.

gasrocks wrote in post #9067348
You're correct, a 35mm crop body only macro lens does not make a lot of sense. I'm looking for a 35 that will do general work and getting a bit closer sometimes might not hurt.

I hesitate to recommend lenses to you since you are more of an expert, but why not a CZJ Flektogon 35 f2.4? MFD of about 7 inches which I think translates to close to 1:2.

I think for Dental work this could be a useful lens, but for general use or even general macro use its a weird animal. Its meant to be close to a 50mm Macro for Crops.

someone just got one here, you could probably pm him for questions:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=779934

nureality wrote in post #9067463
I think for Dental work this could be a useful lens, but for general use or even general macro use its a weird animal. Its meant to be close to a 50mm Macro for Crops.

Just because it is a 1:1 lens, doesn't mean that is all you can use it for. A nice semi-fast normal with close focus abilities would be great. My Sigma 30 only goes to 1.5 feet which has been limiting in a few compositions.

Yes, I do not have a Flek 35/2.4 and it is a great lens, no doubt. Right now I'm working on Leica R 35/2 vs Zeiss ZE 35/2, trying to decide. I'm leaning toward the Leica. Like I really need another lens......