I have never used the other filters and I also don't think I would find a use for them - maybe for astrophotography, for getting longer exposures? I also didn't check to see the difference the filter makes for IQ - I cleaned it, I screwed it on, and I left it there - I just took their word that it works better that way. The hood should matter - the hood the Tokina came with can be mounted in reverse and it's almost as long as the lens body - you can probably make one out of cardboard.
Before getting the Tokina, I tried a Samyang/Phoenix 500/8, but its resolution was very bad - with and without filter - I returned it and I started looking for older used mirrors - that's how I came across the Tokina. I'd like to get a Tamron, but it costs so much more than the Tokina that I don't see the point - I don't expect it's that much better.
BTW, I have some test shots from the Tokina, with 100% crops, in
this old thread - they're not artistic, but they give a good idea of the resolution of this lens. Contrast may be lower, but details are there and will pop out easily with an unsharp mask.
As you probably figured it out, I like mirror lenses a lot. I think you cannot get their reach and IQ with any budget solution. Budget 300mm zooms will be as slow when used with a teleconverter and CA will be worse, plus the combo of lens + TC will most likely cost more. And an expensive 2.8 zoom + TC will not be very handholdable, even putting aside the huge price difference. I don't understand why these lenses are no longer produced by camera makers.
Similar Threads 
