Last year I was in the search for a convenient wide angle zoom something from around 15-20 to 35-40mm. After some research I found these lenses to be the ideal purchase:
Pentax 4/20-35mm
Sigma 3.5-4.5/15-30mm
Sigma 2.8/20-40mm
Tokina AT-X 2.8/20-35mm
Tokina 3.5-4.5/20-35mm I
Tokina 3.5-4.5/20-35mm II
I ruled out these for the following reasons:
Pentax: the price is usually much too high compared to newer, better built lenses that can deliver similar, the same or even better results.
Sigma 15-30mm: I found it a bit short at the long end and a bit oversized.
Sigma 20-40mm: have not seen it for ages for sale. Maybe one day when it pops up somewhere I'll buy it.
Update: I finally came across this Sigma and bought it from a fellow Pentaxian who changed system.
So the Tokinas remained. Unfortunately the AT-X 2.8/20-35mm is rarely available second hand and is discontinued so the last two were the most promising options.
Not long after having this decision made I bumped into the first version of 3.5-4.5/20-35mm Tokina which I finally picked up. I have been using this lens for some months now and I am really satisfied with it (details later in this review/comparison), although different reviews kept me thinking about the II version of this lens.
So recently when I had the opportunity I bought the II version as well because I was really bothered by reviewers stating very mixed opinions.
Now having both lenses in hand (which is the point when you can have a proper opinion) here are my findings for everyones' benefit.
The mount end of the lenses with the rear elements are identical to 100%, so are the zoom rings. The first difference is the distance scale window. While the first version has it Tokina abandoned it on the second version and used the place gained to build a wider focusing ring with a painted distance scale.
The second (or third if you consider the focus ring) difference is the filter thread. The first version has a rotating block which accommodates the front element of the lens with a filter thread of 72mm, therefore the lens has a rotating front element/filter thread. On the second version Tokina fixed the filter thread, made it bigger (77mm) and separated it from the structure that holds the front element.
And this is where the myth disappears. I read in some reviews that the II version has a non-rotating front element so the use of polar filters and petal type lens hood is possible. This is partly true. The front element still ROTATES!!!! It is even the same size on both lenses and have the same rings that keep and fix the elements in place. It is only the filter thread that is fixed, non-rotating.
So as far as it goes Tokina only mechanically upgraded the first version of the lens, but they did not change anything else. Therefore talking about better picture quality in regards of the II version (or some say I version) is a false statement. I dare say that the two versions have the same optics built into them which is also proven by the fact that I have not discovered any difference between the pictures taken with the two lenses (under the same conditions, settings etc.). Only Tokina and some formal test could tell the truth though.
So... if you consider buying one of these lenses you might want to consider the following:
I. version:
Advantages:
smaller, comfortable size (72mm filter) at the end of lens
distance scale window (if this is and advantage at all)
Disadvantage:
rotating filter thread
narrower focusing ring
II. version
Advantages:
non-rotating filter thread
Disadvantages:
bigger in size (77mm filter)
Some people say the II version is better in regards of vignetting when a filter is used, because the filter ring does not cause vignetting, while it does on the first version, but I cannot comment on that. I tested both lenses on digital, but only the first version on film and without filter, although I put it on my LX to see if it has visible vignetting with a filter fitted but I did not notice it by eye.
At the end I still owe you my opinion. I would give both lenses a 8/10. They are very well built, have a very handy focal range (even on digital) and a decent picture quality. If you are on a short budget and want a good lens buy one of these.
P.S.: Please note, that both lenses have the same colour of reflection on the elements in reality. The pictures show some difference but it is due the light reaching the lenses from a slightly different angle.
Last edited by Zivelot; 09-22-2010 at 01:37 PM.
Reason: correction of data