|
|
Interesting read:
https://tokinalens.com/reviews/the_histo...1950_2020/ Fun fact: the name Tokina was based on the Photokina (the camera/photo show in Germany).
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji 
06-05-2020, 01:24 PM
learnt the hard way, from the outside their lenses are built like tanks, no doubt about it.
From inside they tend to be meh flex cables issues are very frequent and the slightest drop can heavily damage the lens. Their optics went a long way, I own Tokina 24-200 and Tokina 16-28f2.8 Tokina 16-28 is an excellent lens very sharp with great rendering, the native vignetting figures are well controlled a rarity for ultrawides, only con I found that is easily avoidable are flare spots in certain conditions, but those are very easu to avoid since you see them in the viewfinder (Markus in his review had similar findings) Tokina 24-200 in comparison suffers from extreme flare, it renders close to Russian era lenses, contrast is close to that of my Helios 58mmf2.0... from the sharpness point of view its is quite soft even stepped down not a good performer
Very interesting read, thanks! I found that they had made some lenses I was never aware of, and here I thought that I know about most AF lenses in existence... (Mostly from reading Photozone, of course).
 That 10-17 fisheye though... I like it and so does my wife. Perfectly usable on APS-H zoomed out a little and loads of fun. But beware of inaccurate AF, and when I combined it with a 5D Mark II that I had to use for a spell, the combo was downright disastrous. Of course the two were never meant to be paired anyway, so I only got myself to blame for this... I also had the 12-24 (first gen) for a little while in 2008, but made a memorable trip with it, and loads of published shots that summer/autumn before selling the lens in anticipation of going to 1D (which didn't happen until a year later; the time was pretty chaotic for me). Fringing was really strong with that one, though - seen on a printed photo on a newspaper page, ugh. As well, I owned the enigmatic 17/3.5 for a while - I was fascinated with it after reading a review on a review site (Photozone also did review it, but I'm chiefly referring to another resource, http://prime-junta.net/, which hasn't been active in almost a decade). Ordered it from the US and even got PayPal just to be able to pay for it - ah, strong feelings. Unfortunately the lens wasn't in use for very long as I was/am well covered in the ultrawide segment so when it fell into disuse I decided to sell it so that it might find a happy owner instead of collecting dust in my office.
06-06-2020, 08:30 AM
That 10-17mm was a Pentax design, the APS-C variant of the earlier full frame Pentax 17-28mm fisheye zoom lens. Innovative, but by Pentax.
I gather than you mean lateral CA when you say "fringing was really strong" with the 12-24mm f4 Tokina. With the right software it was quite easy to correct (even with earlier versions of DPP), which restored sharpness and get rid of the magenta/green CA. My gripe with the 12-24mm f4 was its build quality, or lack thereof. The only lens I ever owned where the plastic (not rubber) zoom/focus ring band split/dried/disintegrated within a few years, where the mount screws loosened all on their own, and the aperture flat cable failed after quite sporadic use (big design fault).
06-06-2020, 08:33 AM
(06-06-2020, 08:09 AM)Rover Wrote: Very interesting read, thanks! I found that they had made some lenses I was never aware of, and here I thought that I know about most AF lenses in existence... (Mostly from reading Photozone, of course). I know in perspn Petteri Sulonen the guy behind http://prime-junta.net/ , I did invite him to the old photozone forum in 2005, he did register but wasn't active at all while being active in Dpreview forums.... to his own words he prefers chaos... He had the lens at the time during his christmas trip to Lebanon, and was selling however I bought from his Sigma 14mmf2.8 (the sample reviewed in his blog) and Canon 50mm f1.4 in mint condition, unfortunately one week later on new year's even the Sigma lens fell t the ground, got severe elements misalignment and needed to be shipped to Japan for very expensive repairs... I didn't know the repairs shop I am dealing with at the time
06-06-2020, 08:39 AM
Yeah, I get that the 10-17 was a Pentax derivative, but it's still marketed as Tokina and frankly, as a consumer rather than a historian, I could not care less what kind of cross-pollination had happened there. I think it was a good thing, allowing some designs that would've otherwise remained available only to Pentax users to find their way into other systems. Besides, I'm a sucker for weird lenses, that's why a load of odd stuff had gone through my camera bag(s), and some remained there (like that Sigma 14mm that nobody except the abovementioned Petteri Sulonen had ever spared a kind word for). So why not the Tokinas? (I also entertained the thought of getting their 100mm macro to dip my feet into that realm without spending too much, but, like a 85mm lens, macros are something I always talk about but never get to buy for one reason or the other).
06-06-2020, 08:57 AM
Well the 14mmf2.8 gave me plenty of keepers and I do regret selling it, hadn't I sold it, it would be still in my bag till now, stepped down it was very sharp and the colors were very decent, as a student I needed the money...
I'm quite surprised that Tokina never really made it to the level of Sigma or Tamron.
Sure, they had some presence with APS-C ultra-wide lenses but from there some weird decisions limited their ability to grow. They were late with FF DSLR lenses at their prime time, and they are now late with mirrorless lenses as well. The 70-200mm f/4 VCM-S was surely capable but why? The development surely burned a lot of money for a small niche. And now the Viltrox variations? Back in the early (film) days I owned the 20-35mm f/2.8, 28-80mm f/2.8, and the 100-300mm f/4 (weirdly, they forgot the latter one in their history). Awesome lenses in the scope of their time, not today anymore, of course ... although they started my reservation against everything heavy. I remember that I carried this kit across the Thoronga-La (5416m) pass in Nepal. Thereafter I was done with Tokina regardless of my love for the build quality. ;-)
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji (06-06-2020, 09:02 AM)Klaus Wrote: I'm quite surprised that Tokina never really made it to the level of Sigma or Tamron. build quality from outside is excellent, for the internal electronics they have serious reliability issues.... and here's my problem with Tokinas, Never tried the Sigma ART versions or newer Tamrons, I had many problems with Sigmas in the past hopefully they are solved by now (my 24-70 once broke into 2 pieces, but was replaced under warranty) Had an 2 year experience with Sony, and yes they are prone to frequent failures, shutter button issue on A6000, 16-50 barrel after some use needs replacement since the mechanism for collapsible lens fails.... that's why I switched back to Canon and OEM lenses. However I feel well served and have no intentions in investing in any lenses for the time being, except an affordable and compact 20-60 zoom from whichever maker, and a standard zoom for my wife's A6000 to replace 16-50
06-06-2020, 06:28 PM
Tokina has always had very few lenses and was/is holding to mechanically and operationally inferior designs for most of their products, like that stupid focus clutch and their slow and buzzy AF motors from the late 80s. Where Sigma and Tamron made huge progress and innovated, Tokina was seemingly content to rehash their older stuff and tread water. It's been a vicious circle really as I'm not sure they even have all the modern technologies figured out. Some of the lenses show them, and then... For each new lens we're getting two versions of the old stuff with the god-damned focus clutch!
|
