Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-13-2015, 04:04 AM   #46
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
QuoteOriginally posted by Dlanor Sekao Quote
For a Zoom....check out Sigma 21-35mm and also a Phoenix / Samyang 18-28mm.......both are under $100. Sorry images are so crappy......in a hurry. Point and shoot and no lights...TV time....lol




I have one of these Samyang 18-28mm lenses. Mine says Polar on it. I got it at Kimpo airport in South Korea over 20 years ago. I think I paid $120 for it. The front group wobbles like crazy, but the image quality is amazingly good anyway. Since I have a Pentax 12-24 and Sigma 17-70 lenses mine doesn't get much use at the moment. If I go full frame later this year, I will have to put it back in the bag.

03-13-2015, 05:18 AM   #47
Senior Member
RubyT's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: TN
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 298
I recently picked up an FA J 18-35 and have been having fun with it on film. Definitely under $200.
03-13-2015, 07:00 AM   #48
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,457
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
I have one of these Samyang 18-28mm lenses. Mine says Polar on it. I got it at Kimpo airport in South Korea over 20 years ago. I think I paid $120 for it. The front group wobbles like crazy, but the image quality is amazingly good anyway. Since I have a Pentax 12-24 and Sigma 17-70 lenses mine doesn't get much use at the moment. If I go full frame later this year, I will have to put it back in the bag.
That's what Im planning on doing. Yes...the front of the lens wobbles a bit even when new. I slid a rubber ring on mine for lenscreep and that solved that , but do have to push it forward evenly every shot. Its not a bad lens at all. But there are better !
03-16-2015, 10:38 AM   #49
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Woodstock, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by manntax Quote
No , it wouldn't - I am pretty certain that zoom will not touch my Tokina
Sorry, not trying to second guess you, but have you had the 16-45? I haven't had either, but I'm going by what photozone.de said in their test results, that the Tokina, while a good lens, isn't really worth the deal when a zoom like the 16-45 clearly is (according to their test) sharper corner to corner, and has the advantage of the newer coatings.

I'll agree that the Tokina pictures that I've seen are more pleasing to the eye - my eyes at least... at some point I'd love to get one... but I might end up with a 16-45 first, due to sheer bang for the buck factor.

03-16-2015, 11:21 AM   #50
Veteran Member
manntax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
I'll agree that the Tokina pictures that I've seen are more pleasing to the eye - my eyes at least... at some point I'd love to get one... but I might end up with a 16-45 first, due to sheer bang for the buck factor.
No I haven't handled that 16-45 myself but, as yourself, I have reviewed many images from that lens, and Tokina for me simple comes better in every respect (apart from flare resistance maybe ). Plus my experience tells me it is highly unlikely that budget zoom lens would touch the image quality of a prime! not to mention the fact that Tokina wasn't just another wide angle prime, it was a premium lens for premium money in its day !
03-16-2015, 02:51 PM - 1 Like   #51
Pentaxian
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,501
QuoteOriginally posted by manntax Quote
No I haven't handled that 16-45 myself but, as yourself, I have reviewed many images from that lens, and Tokina for me simple comes better in every respect (apart from flare resistance maybe ). Plus my experience tells me it is highly unlikely that budget zoom lens would touch the image quality of a prime! not to mention the fact that Tokina wasn't just another wide angle prime, it was a premium lens for premium money in its day !
Just to clarify for future reference - Tokina had 17mm f/3.5 lenses - as RMC (and SL if I recall correctly) MF lenses, followed by the AT-X for AF. I am pretty sure that the AT-X was never produced for Pentax. I sold a few of the MF versions in the old days; I owned the 17mm AT-X AF in Canon mount for use primarily on a FF (but tried it on the crop camera). I have owned the 16-45 for several years and use it very regularly.

I suspect the coatings on the Tokina improved slightly, but they were still mediocre on the AT-X. On the FF, sharpness into the corners somewhat stopped down was quite good, but the center sharpness wasn't in the excellent range. While I'm a big fan of quality older optics and use several of them, not many UWA lenses made before the 1990s perform great on digital crop sensors - for several technical reasons. I'm not bashing the 17mm, especially not when used for its intended purpose - on FF cameras. However, the 16-45 is clearly a better lens - especially so at f/5.6 and beyond, and also better wide open by 19mm where the lens is superb. The flare resistance is much better. The center sharpness is far greater at all f-stops, but it loses ground in the corners.

Lens makers put a lot of effort into UWA lenses when the crop sensor dSLRs came out. Even the good zooms were generally sharper than the FF prime lenses designed for film. The 17mm Tokina design was very good overall, falling a bit short on the flare resistance (a common Tokina failing, in my experience). I think its possible that its IQ has been somewhat overstated here.

Last edited by ScooterMaxi Jim; 03-16-2015 at 02:57 PM.
03-16-2015, 03:50 PM   #52
Veteran Member
manntax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
However, the 16-45 is clearly a better lens
1. different - yes, better - don't think so

QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
especially so at f/5.6 and beyond
2. really doubt that

QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
but it loses ground in the corners.
3. enough said - especially ad. pt 1 and 2 , at least for landscapes corner sharpness is critical

QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
The flare resistance is much better.
4. true

QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
I think its possible that its IQ has been somewhat overstated here.
again - I doubt that. in my personal experience it is a terrific lens, for its intended purpose I don't think I could buy something better for the same money.
Not like I am just talking.. here is another shot, f8, - beat that with your zoom and I will sell all my primes :P
(mind you ISO 400, hand held, so more noise and less detail than it possible could have)

full image - not cropped


100% crop - roughly centre, just to address the claims about low sharpness there !
03-16-2015, 04:34 PM   #53
Pentaxian
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,501
The thing is this: I handled the Tokina lens extensively when I sold it. I used the lens in both FF and crop - and I have used the 16-45 extensively for several years. Your experience in comparing them appears limited to the opinion you've offered - and a few photos that do not appear as sharp as my experience with the 16-45 (keeping in mind that posting here does considerably limit the ability to properly assess). I do know this - that shooting the Tokina into this strong light would yield very poor results (and you wouldn't get quite this wide).

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-30  Photo 
03-16-2015, 04:49 PM - 1 Like   #54
Pentaxian
hoopsontoast's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 828
One of the best cheap WA lenses I have had is the Sigma 24mm f2.8 Super Wide II AF Macro. Had one on a Sigma SD15 and its a brilliant little lens, small/compact and lightweight but super sharp even wide open as well as having short MFD for interesting compositions. Pity its quite hard to find the AF version in PK mount.

Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 macro (Pentax K) - Review / Lab Test Report





03-17-2015, 12:45 AM   #55
Veteran Member
manntax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
I handled the Tokina lens extensively when I sold it. I used the lens in both FF and crop
You may have had a bad copy of it perhaps with some haze or e excessive dust. I had 2 other Tokinas in my hands and they both were worse than the currently owned one.


QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
Your experience in comparing them appears limited to the opinion you've offered
I do appreciate modern lenses and I know that expecialy in ultra wide angle range modern primes are usually better than legacy glass. But from the pictures I reviewed online it was clear to me that 16-45 cannot compete with Tokina 17mm at similar focal lengths - especially sharpness-wise. I agree shooting into the sun would be much more difficult and in some configurations - impossible, but that is the limitation I am willing to incorporate into my way of using this lens.

QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
and a few photos that do not appear as sharp as my experience with the 16-45
well... so far it is my images vs. your 'sharp experience' - how about backing up your statements with actual images ? AND 100% crop of those ?
03-17-2015, 05:10 AM   #56
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 411
Not sure if mid-hi $300s USD is cheap to you, but right now there has been a large price drop on the Sigma 10-20 f4/5.6 due to a recent $100USD rebate.

Bit of a specialized lens, but certainly wide angle. I have one on the way, however I have never used one so can't give you a critique. Generally gets good reviews.
03-17-2015, 05:24 AM   #57
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,419
I wish I'd have known not to get cheap lenses when I started. If I'd have saved up and got better lenses I would have saved money in the long run.
03-17-2015, 06:30 AM   #58
Veteran Member
manntax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
I wish I'd have known not to get cheap lenses when I started. If I'd have saved up and got better lenses I would have saved money in the long run.
true voice of reason
03-17-2015, 07:55 AM   #59
Pentaxian
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,501
QuoteOriginally posted by manntax Quote
You may have had a bad copy of it perhaps with some haze or e excessive dust. I had 2 other Tokinas in my hands and they both were worse than the currently owned one.
What part of extensive experience are you not understanding? I have handled many of the 17mm Tokina lenses. My copy of the AF lens was in perfect condition, no haze, not decentered, used for professional shots. It just isn't nearly as sharp and contrasty a lens as you claim - and that's what the market understands, as well. Not nearly in the class of the Pentax 15mm, not close to the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm. These are more expensive optics for good reason.

I do appreciate modern lenses and I know that expecialy in ultra wide angle range modern primes are usually better than legacy glass. But from the pictures I reviewed online it was clear to me that 16-45 cannot compete with Tokina 17mm at similar focal lengths - especially sharpness-wise. I agree shooting into the sun would be much more difficult and in some configurations - impossible, but that is the limitation I am willing to incorporate into my way of using this lens.

well... so far it is my images vs. your 'sharp experience' - how about backing up your statements with actual images ? AND 100% crop of those ?
I have relatively sharp images from the 17mm (ones posted in professional websites) that are fine, and will show up similarly on this site because everything here is downsampled. I generally use a 12-24 on Canon crop because that lens is sharper than the 17mm (but with more CA too in need of correction, admittedly); it was designed for a crop sensor. So, not a lot to post from crop with the 17mm (but did test it out to find out if it could compete with the 12-24).

As noted earlier, I have extensive experience with the 17mm - having handled several of them. My AF version was in perfect shape, with no haze or decentering. It just didn't have the center sharpness and contrast you can find on newer UWA designs, such as the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm, for instance.

Seeing images from others posted is far from working with these lenses on a regular basis. I do think a lot of good photographers have posted interesting images with that lens - and that can influence your interpretation of its quality. I'd also say that the market somewhat undervalues the quality of the lens.

I posted a shot that I know, for sure, that the 17mm couldn't replicate due to flare issues; I won't be posting more; you aren't going to be swayed, but others reading this thread will understand. The 16-45mm is a better lens on crop sensor, and the 17mm is a satisfactory to good lens on a FF sensor; it wasn't made for crop or digital, so its somewhat middling performance on crop is to be expected.

Your shots do show some fringing, and oversharpening, IMHO. They are OK, but other - even economical - lenses have surpassed it. Not discouraging anyone from getting this lens (even encouraging those who plan to buy the FF camera), but there are other good choices out there.

Last edited by ScooterMaxi Jim; 03-17-2015 at 08:51 AM.
03-17-2015, 08:24 AM   #60
Veteran Member
manntax's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,972
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
It just didn't have the center sharpness
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
I won't be posting more; you aren't going to be swayed,
you keep mentioning that central sharpness, yet you haven't shown so far anything with better sharpness in similar focal length - why? What is stopping you from simple uploading one photo in full and then 100% crop of it - instead of writing long-ish posts explaining how wrong I am ?

I said several times already , that I know there are as good or better wide angle lenses out there. In many respects, and flare resistance is one of them , but you can hardly convince anybody talking about sharpness and not showing any proof of it. Besides, sharpness is not the same thing what micro-contrast is , and modern lenses often have plenty of that, and photos appear to be sharp and crispy , but it isn't resolution! Even yourself you said that 16-45 will lack of that in the corners. For me that alone is disqualifying this lens for landscapes.

On the other hand I really wish I got convinced to ditch my 17mm and so I could pick a 150 zoom that would not only go wider, but also allowed better framing etc.. sadly its not going to happen because that zoom is disappointing in corners and distortions... and your image if anything, shows exactly that.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
18mm, 24mm, 28mm, adapter, angle, camera, da, dslr, expensive, fine, fisheye, lens, lenses, money, option, pentax, photography, pk, pka, post, price, sigma, sigma 24mm, tokina
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fast, cheap WIDE ANGLE (not fisheye) lens? tripodquest Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 50 11-02-2013 12:09 PM
Manual wide angle lens crossmr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 01-26-2013 07:32 PM
What's a good cheap wide angle lens? hockmasm Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 02-06-2011 01:12 PM
Cheap - Wide Angle Lens Converter cdurfor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 02-23-2010 11:57 PM
Cheap ultra wide angle lens? CJCram Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-29-2008 11:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top