[danixmen]

Hello, What do you think is best in sharpness?
Thank you

[luftfluss]

Have you checked out the lens database?

[Swift1]

I've never used any of the Cosina (?) made 19-35mm lenses, but I've heard they are great lenses.
I've owned a Pentax FAJ for 4 years and have used it mainly with my MZ-L film body. I think it's a superb lens that's very underrated.
Here are some film shots (and a few digital),
https://www.flickr.com/photos/daiku_san/sets/72157640060489756/

[Kayaker-J]

The Tokina and the Quantaray [?] editions of that 19-35mm are different from sibling versions variously branded in the robustness of construction and in utilizing some higher specification glass (or so the story goes for the latter). That Tokina model also is in no way the same as the 20-35mm/f.3.5-4.5 full frame coverage WA zoom I just picked up. Someone here already made the wrong assumption when I first mentioned it. So be careful considering...

[danixmen]

Thanks for the replies.
I know the Tokina 19-35 = 20-35 (the f3.5).
Cosina, Soligor, Tamron lenses are different ....

I have also read in several webs that the Tokina 20-35 f3.5 is better than 20-35 f2.8 (is this true?)

Regarding the Pentax 18-35 I read less. I know it's good but not sure it is better than the Tokina. So I ask in the forum.

Thank you

[Kayaker-J]

Thanks for the replies.
I know the Tokina 19-35 = 20-35 (the f3.5).
Cosina, Soligor, Tamron lenses are different ....

I have also read in several webs that the Tokina 20-35 f3.5 is better than 20-35 f2.8 (is this true?)

Regarding the Pentax 18-35 I read less. I know it's good but not sure it is better than the Tokina. So I ask in the forum.

Thank you

NO! The 19-35mm Tokina does NOT = the 20-35mm Tokina in any form. The former is a cheaper and lesser lens [most likely], though not bad, it's reported. Different animals! Please study the lens database to compare -- thoroughly! As to whether the significantly more burdensome f.2.8 AT•X 20-35mm Tokina is better or worse optically under conditions most suitable for each... well, ya got me. Ken Rockwell votes emphatically for the slower lens... but I would not trust Ken -- ALONE -- as far as I could spit on this one. Even his reasoning is overtly shakey this time. Nevertheless, for MY money, I went with two copies of the more compact version. Fast WA zooms are a tough manufacture (particularly in that time frame) and I demanded the portability... for the narrow FL-range of interest to me. I like my odds, as well as my better likelihood of getting a valid decision accomplished, going to a double sample of the one, over one shot at pot luck with the other. Not to mention the price difference. The 17-50mm Tamron, again, also contends at my FL's of prime interest, so I have it on my plate here, too. Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do...

[danixmen]

I mean Tokina 19-35 f3.5 = Tokina 20-35 f3.5. I have read that the 20-35 f3.5 in 20mm behaves like 19mm (is relabeling 19-35). Equal in IQ (obviously under construction is much better 20-35)
In this comparison (use translator) is clearly seen as the 20mm 20-35 f3.5 has more angular than the 20mm 20-35 f2.8

http://www.fotorelax.com/forum/index.php?topic=710.0


In the database get much better the 20-35 f2.8 than f3.5, I have read (and much more expensive).

My question is what I read on Ken Rockwell and dyxum:

Tokina 20-35mm F3.5-4.5 II AF A-mount lens detail page (version II)
Tokina 20-35mm F2.8 AT-X 235 AF PRO A-mount lens detail page

I have the Tamron 17-50 and I have put it on sale. I want to change it to the Tokina or Tamron 17-35 (I read that far down on the edges)

Sorry for the spelling, use the google translator

Thanks

---

Last edited by danixmen; 08-12-2014 at 04:49 AM.

[Kayaker-J]

Thanks for the links above, danixmen. I'll look them over sometime today. That reminds me, I need to make contact with the dyxum gang regarding a box of Minolta AF lenses and such I was given by a friend which need some evaluation. This seems to be their turf. I'll get back here on this WA zoom thing if any blazing insights come to me upon reading. Good luck in your search in any event.

[hoopsontoast]

If you can find one, the FA20-35mm f4 is well worth a try.
I had one on a K-7 and was did not really use it that much so moved it on, bought another copy recently to use on 35mm film and its excellent. Very light weight too at the expense of the plastic build but still feels sturdy enough.
On digital, the sharpness was great, even wide open @ f4. Not really had a chance with any high-res scans of film yet though.

SMC Pentax-FA 20-35mm F4 AL Reviews - FA Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

[danixmen]

Thank you, the SMC FA20-35 already I knew .... but is very far from my budget :-(

[hoopsontoast]

I have heard good things about the Tamron AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF, usually about half the price here compared to the FA20-35 (£100-£150 Vs £250)

Tamron AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF (Nikon) - Review / Lab Test Report

[ChristianRock]

When I had the same question, I chose the Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5. Compared to the kit lens 18-55, I like it much better, especially at the wide end. I don't like my kit lens at 18mm, it's pretty good at 24mm and 5.6 all the way to 55mm at f8. But at 18mm for some reason it's just not good. Maybe I have a bad copy (it's the AL II). But even though it's sharp from 24mm up, I don't like the colors I get with it.

The 19-35, on the other hand, is sharp throughout the range starting at 5.6, and especially at f8. I wouldn't say it's a lot sharper than the kit lens, in fact it's probably similar, maybe a tiny bit better. But it looks sharper because it has better contrast, and the colors are much more to my liking:



AF is pretty fast, a bit faster than my kit lens, and it's internal so it's not that noisy.

Mine was under 100 dollars in EX condition from KEH. Can't beat that price...

From what I've seen the Cosina/Phoenix/Vivitar/Voigtlander, though a different lens, has a similar optical formula and is also a good lens. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one, though the Tokina has the better build. Super solid. I'm happy with mine for outdoors - still looking for something else to use indoors... but that's a different story...

KEH has a Phoenix (Cosina) for 79 dollars currently if you feel inclined to try one out...

I have no experience with the FA J 18-35, or the Sigma 18-35 3.5-4.5 which also sells for under 100 dollars and might be worth a look...

[danixmen]

Thanks for the tips.

I have looked at many photos on Flickr of Tamron 17-35 and is very sharp in the center, but the edges are bad, bad enough I'd say.
Instead pictures Tokina 19-35 / 20-35 are not as sharp in the center but quite good at the edges

Regarding Cosina / Vivitar / Promaster / Soligor prefer not to opt for them, I read that are a bit worse than Tokina

Candidates (for budget) are now:

- Tokina 19-35 / 20-35 f3.5
- Tamron 17-35
- Pentax FA J 18-35

I will opt for the best of the 3 options. I want to use in my K5IIs and for future Pentax FF (which I know is coming soon)

Thank you

[Kameraten]

The comparison is meaningful again now that there is a full-frame camera, so here's my fresh input:
– The Tokina is sharper, especially in the corners. In the dead centre, not so much difference
– The 19 mm of the Tokina actually seems to be 20 mm.
– You will get closer focus with the DA-J
– Both are rather soft at 35 mm.
– Both produce a lot of flare, and have a bluish cast.
– Neither one makes sense on APS-C. On the K-1 they make sense if you cannot for some reason (money or weight) carry along the DA 15-30 or FA 12-24.
– The build quality of the Tokina is much nicer. The DA-J is all plastic. Both are comparatively small and light.
– Focusing may need heavy correcting with the Tokina (mine needs fine adjustment -9)
Attached some comparative images - of the lenses, and the 12-24 for comparison, and one shot at 18/20 mm and f 5.6 with the DA-J (left) and the Tokina. Same scene, two months apart - sorry I can't make it simultaneously, since my DA-J is no longer operational.

[S.M.]

The FA J 18-35 is a cheap extream wide lens zoom but it isn't very sharp, i am satisfied of the lens but if sharpness is very important to you I wouldn't recommend that lens.