New Member Registered: November, 2016 Posts: 7 | | Review Date: September 12, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $55.00
| Rating: N/A |
| Pros: | unique aperture shape | | Cons: | unique aperture shape | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
| |
I own the m42 fixed mount, 52mm filter thread diameter, 8-blade version made by Tokina.
The lens has the typical metal build quality from that era. Sharpness is a bit lacking wide open but sharpens up nicely at F5.6. The 8-aperture blades give unique out of focus highlights that gives it character. Of course, this is subjective. I find it nice sometimes and bothersome in other situations. But its something you don't see in many lenses.
| |
New Member Registered: February, 2015 Posts: 2
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 9, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, color rendering, no CA or distortion. | | Cons: | None so far. | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: ILCE-6000
| |
After hunting for a good vintage manual focus 35mm prime in M42 mount with little satisfaction, my research lead me to this gem by Tokina. This lens is also available under the Ricoh marque. And probably branded by others.
Build quality is very good, typical all metal/glass construction. Focus throw is ideal. Optical performance is excellent. Center sharp wide open, with nice bokeh. Color is accurate and rich. No CA, or PF detected, and stopped down, it's very sharp for landscapes. It's near field and far field focus is well balanced. I didn't see any problems with flare either. But I do shoot with a hood regardless.
I like it better than a Super Takumar 35 f/3.5. Sharper and faster than the Tak. A definite recommended buy should you need a 35mm prime.
| |
New Member Registered: February, 2012 Posts: 17
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 30, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Very good wide open, and it is fast compared with most zooms | | Cons: | CA round the borders, doesn't improve stopping down | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 8
Camera Used: Samsung GX20
| |
When I started with a Digital SLR, I had nothing faster than f3.5 at less than 50mm, so I bought some inexpensive wider primes to give me f2.8 for use (mainly indoors) in lower light. When I bought the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 AF, I hoped it would cure me of LBA, but unfortunately it just meant the faster primes became larger, harder to find and more expensive.
The Vivitar TX 35mm f2.5 is one such purchase.
Actually, I like it. When I bought it, it was a bit faster than anything else that I had at 35mm, I find the extra half stop or so over the Tamron 17-50mm AF useful, and the TX is the easiest to focus of anything I have at 35mm without the benefit of a split screen or an eyepiece magnifier attachment. Wide open, the TX displays excellent contrast and sharpness in the centre of the image. Focusing is lovely and smooth. The TX handles very nicely; a plus from the lens's possibly excessive diameter is very precise manual focusing.
The drawbacks with the TX are:
- It doesn't get any better at all as it is stopped down. It starts better than the Tamron 17-50mm wide open, but by f5.6 the Tamron surpasses it
- There is obvious CA in the corners and along the edges when the image is viewed at 1:1. And this, remember, is on an APS-C sensor
- The CA doesn't diminish much, if at all, as the lens is stopped down
- I have to use a hood, otherwise veiling flare is a problem, even if there are no obvious light sources other than the sky
- It seems unnecessarily bulky. The CZJ 35mm f2.4 Flektogon is almost exactly the same length, but it takes a 49mm filter rather than a 58mm filter.
The CZJ 35mm f2.4 Flektogon is faster again, shows less CA, and improves markedly as it is stopped down. The Flektogon gives subtle renditions of fine detail, but the contrast of the Flektogon is much lower than that of the TX wide open, and even with the Seagull focusing magnifier I find focusing the Flektogon in poor light is tricky. By f5.6, the Flektogon shows much less difference between the corners and the centre than the TX, but overall the Flektogon is still behind at f5.6.
The Cosina 35mm f2.8 is tiny by comparison with the TX. Wide open, the Cosina 35mm f2.8 is ahead of the Tamron and nearly up with the TX, and by f5.6 the Cosina surpasses the TX. But at f5.6 Tamron has overtaken the Cosina. The Cosina shows the least CA of any of these primes. The Tamron always has better contrast than the Cosina, and shows no CA whatsoever.
I find autofocus with the Tamron on the GX-20 to be hit and miss. It doesn't seem to be back focus per se. When I 'improve' the focus manually, my manual adjustment is still considered to be 'in focus' by focus confirm. I need the Seagull, though, to do this with both the Cosina and the Tamron.
In conclusion, the TX has a place; used wide open for available light shooting. The main reason I don't use it more is my Vivitar (Kiron) 28mm f2. Rather wider, but faster still.
For good measure, I also compared the Pentax-M 40mm f2.8. Sharpness is in the same ballpark as the others mentioned here, and it is of course tiny. Whilst it may be the case that I have low standards, I recommend all of these.
Overall, I give the TX an 8. I have marked it down for its rather restricted applicability in my situation.
| |
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
